This was interesting to read. My experience has been growing up Lutheran and finding it much more rigid and simplistic than Catholicism, which I’ve found to be very open to the experiential/mystical as well as complex and holding of the mystery.
I’m not sure how your proposals will lead to anything but the “vague spiritualism or institutional detachment” that you mention early in the post.
I agree that it’s necessary to see the non-doctrinal causes of the doctrinal hang-ups that people have. But I think it is very meaningful and true to say that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Apostles in a way that no Protestant church is. If you are proposing Catholics say otherwise, you’re simply asking them to not be Catholic.
I would recommend reading Lindman's "Nature of Doctrine". By first understanding the linguistic models of Doctrine, then can Christians only appeal towards unity from a place of understanding each other's faults in doctrinal development, doing so wouldn't lead Christians into "vague spiritualism" but return them to the apostolic church which removes itself from necessary divisions.
What Apostolic Church? Brother, there isn’t another show in town: Catholic or Orthodox. Sure, we can get better at articulating stuff, but if you’re saying Catholics need to “recognize faults in doctrinal development” and that will somehow lead to the true Church—I disagree. There may be infelicities, but what fault am I meant to recognize? Your approach seems to presume Protestantism.
They must come to terms with the nature of their doctrine and understand how the evolution of Catholic teaching prompted individuals to initiate the Reformation... If one reads the article sincerely, it offers a clear historical account of how Catholicism gradually hardened into a more rigid, dogmatic system, drifting toward the extremities of cognitive propositionalism. Naturally, you may disagree at once—understandably so, since the Catholic Church has wedged your sincere faith between the conflicting pressures of rigid doctrines on salvation and the natural, rational doubt that arises when one begins to question the fallibility of post-scriptural human teachings. And as for the "Apostolic Church", do you mean the undivided Church that existed before the schisms? That Church, sadly, is no longer present among us in its original form. Nor do you have it, or the Orthodox Christian or the protestants... Why do I say this? Because we are called to rebuke division: “I appeal to you... that there be no divisions among you... Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?” Paul explicitly rebukes divisions in the Corinthian church caused by allegiance to different leaders. The apostolic rebuke is firm: unity must centre on Christ.
Despite so much disagreement, I will thank you for taking the time to respond to me and for acknowledging the sincerity of my faith. These are always signs of good will.
I read through your piece and am fine with the gradual pattern you notice, but I don’t see it as conclusive of any sort of falsehood in Catholic teaching. One might prefer a more organic or beautiful expression than simple propositions, but the times seemed to call for it, and in any event, that is what the times received. To be sure the mystery of God is greater than any proposition but I would hope to have my belly split before denying a single one of them.
I don’t feel wedged by the “conflicting pressures of rigid doctrines” or “natural, rational doubt” as you say. I believe the whole of the Catholic faith is true and it indeed seems to me to be so. And I will say your shadowy “Apostolic Church” has little appeal for one who belongs to a Church that has not ceased to exist since Christ founded it. I am curious to ask what Christian body you belong to and how you see it moving “in the right direction.” But in my mind, for a Christian to fail at being Catholic or Orthodox is the same as to be a Protestant.
For all my opposition, please let me tell you that I at least do not doubt the sincerity of your faith!
I'm not affirming a new church and then to call it the apostolic church, I'm calling to affirm the reformation as originally intended, alot of Catholics do talk about the necessity of a "New Theology" look at Bishop Barron's book: "The Priority of Christ" he is recognising the necessity of embracing and finding resolve in what the reformers were pointing at by carefully integrating post-liberal theology where it needs to be acknowledged.
This was interesting to read. My experience has been growing up Lutheran and finding it much more rigid and simplistic than Catholicism, which I’ve found to be very open to the experiential/mystical as well as complex and holding of the mystery.
I’m not sure how your proposals will lead to anything but the “vague spiritualism or institutional detachment” that you mention early in the post.
I agree that it’s necessary to see the non-doctrinal causes of the doctrinal hang-ups that people have. But I think it is very meaningful and true to say that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Apostles in a way that no Protestant church is. If you are proposing Catholics say otherwise, you’re simply asking them to not be Catholic.
I would recommend reading Lindman's "Nature of Doctrine". By first understanding the linguistic models of Doctrine, then can Christians only appeal towards unity from a place of understanding each other's faults in doctrinal development, doing so wouldn't lead Christians into "vague spiritualism" but return them to the apostolic church which removes itself from necessary divisions.
What Apostolic Church? Brother, there isn’t another show in town: Catholic or Orthodox. Sure, we can get better at articulating stuff, but if you’re saying Catholics need to “recognize faults in doctrinal development” and that will somehow lead to the true Church—I disagree. There may be infelicities, but what fault am I meant to recognize? Your approach seems to presume Protestantism.
They must come to terms with the nature of their doctrine and understand how the evolution of Catholic teaching prompted individuals to initiate the Reformation... If one reads the article sincerely, it offers a clear historical account of how Catholicism gradually hardened into a more rigid, dogmatic system, drifting toward the extremities of cognitive propositionalism. Naturally, you may disagree at once—understandably so, since the Catholic Church has wedged your sincere faith between the conflicting pressures of rigid doctrines on salvation and the natural, rational doubt that arises when one begins to question the fallibility of post-scriptural human teachings. And as for the "Apostolic Church", do you mean the undivided Church that existed before the schisms? That Church, sadly, is no longer present among us in its original form. Nor do you have it, or the Orthodox Christian or the protestants... Why do I say this? Because we are called to rebuke division: “I appeal to you... that there be no divisions among you... Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?” Paul explicitly rebukes divisions in the Corinthian church caused by allegiance to different leaders. The apostolic rebuke is firm: unity must centre on Christ.
Despite so much disagreement, I will thank you for taking the time to respond to me and for acknowledging the sincerity of my faith. These are always signs of good will.
I read through your piece and am fine with the gradual pattern you notice, but I don’t see it as conclusive of any sort of falsehood in Catholic teaching. One might prefer a more organic or beautiful expression than simple propositions, but the times seemed to call for it, and in any event, that is what the times received. To be sure the mystery of God is greater than any proposition but I would hope to have my belly split before denying a single one of them.
I don’t feel wedged by the “conflicting pressures of rigid doctrines” or “natural, rational doubt” as you say. I believe the whole of the Catholic faith is true and it indeed seems to me to be so. And I will say your shadowy “Apostolic Church” has little appeal for one who belongs to a Church that has not ceased to exist since Christ founded it. I am curious to ask what Christian body you belong to and how you see it moving “in the right direction.” But in my mind, for a Christian to fail at being Catholic or Orthodox is the same as to be a Protestant.
For all my opposition, please let me tell you that I at least do not doubt the sincerity of your faith!
I'm not affirming a new church and then to call it the apostolic church, I'm calling to affirm the reformation as originally intended, alot of Catholics do talk about the necessity of a "New Theology" look at Bishop Barron's book: "The Priority of Christ" he is recognising the necessity of embracing and finding resolve in what the reformers were pointing at by carefully integrating post-liberal theology where it needs to be acknowledged.
They hate each other, plain and simple, and the divide feels so out of reach that a unification feels highly unlikely.