Sectarianism isn't of the Gospel. There are indeed fundamentally different beliefs, in principle, undergirding superficial glances at Catholicism and Protestantism. But to take a more catholic view of the matter is a matter of ad fontes. This was the impulse of Luther and many Christian humanists of his time and prior. But it depends on which swath of Protestantism you are referring to. It is too reductionistic just to say "Catholics against Protestants," even Catholics have a continuum. There are many scholastic reformed and Lutheran Protestants, for example, because of their appropriation of Thomistic themes, that are of a piece with Catholic thinking; even tho they assert and attempt to argue otherwise. I would suggest a reading of Stephen Strehle's book *The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel*. Things aren't as neat as you seem to have them laid out. I personally believe there are Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox who "saved," and this despite any sectarianism and adiaphora that might be present or elevated to essentials of the faith. https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Roots-Protestant-Gospel-Reformation/dp/9004102035/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1KER0GLWHHC3I&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.glrklZ3UvHmKIjslmK2Gb7FORUKrgA6CPcZmUI9XkT0.MM3pWD2CWv76n_8dk7r_ojiUI6aMQUZXXVWhdSBr1Jo&dib_tag=se&keywords=stephen+strehle+catholic+roots&qid=1716521872&sprefix=stephen+strehle+catholic+root%2Caps%2C165&sr=8-1
Deal with the specifics of my argument please. It's typical prot arrogance to lecture me about how to be a Catholic. It is this simple prots reject 6 of 7 sacraments, Mary, the working of the Holy Spirit in tradition, und und und. It's not cut from the same cloth sorry.
Blep. You need to learn precision. I read your intro, skimmed the body, and read the conclusion. How many words is your post here? Tl;dr. Not really interested in the exchange tho. Your argument is non-starting next to the Gospel. QED
I read enough, like I said. But yeah, it seems to me that your conclusion should synopsize enough in order to allow your readers to come to a general judgment about the soundness of your total argument. But yeah, I don't have the time or the motivation to read your paper on this. But based on your conclusion and intro it seems to me that your argument ends up collapsing the Gospel reality itself into its many implications, one way or the other. The Gospel is greater than its many parts, and some of those are closer to the center or core than the others. You've seemingly elevated liturgical matters as if they represent the core of the Gospel, and to me that represents a serious category mistake. Beyond that, and more to the material theological issues present within a Catholic understanding of soteriology, is how infused grace (as a quality) ostensibly functions within the souls of the elect; i.e., abstract from God's person and work, as it were. As if the elect soul can cooperate with God in meriting salvation (so cooperative grace). The Reformed orthodox have taken this type of Aristotelian/Thomist schema over into their soteriology, which is to my earlier point, which in the end somewhat undercuts your apparent thesis on exclusivity vis a vis salvation/justification. IOW, there is continuity between some Catholic iterations of salvation theory and some Protestant iterations. Things are more complex than you appear to make them. And that's all I've got for this.
You didn't read my argument. This sort of arrogance is special special. Your comment here, once again lecturing me about how to be Catholic, when your comment demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the matter itself. Ie We are saved by the ministry of Jesus Christ through sacraments. You reject 6 of 7. Hmmm better to focus on soteriology as if it's merely a speculative matter of theologically penetrating the mystery of human freedom and divine providence. It only demonstrates your cluelessness of the orthodox or Catholic pov, little more. If you're a synergist then cooperate and get in the arc!
There is nothing speculative about understanding 1) a theory of authority, and 2) how that subsequently impacts a theory of the church and salvation. I am not suggesting that there aren't substantive liturgical and doctrinal differences b/t Roman Catholicism and Protestantism simpliciter. But you're simply presuming upon a self-referencing and thus self-validating frame of reference vis a vis the absolute credibility of the Catholic magisterium. You seemingly offer no nuance, or cannot recognize that within Catholicism itself there are variances in understanding the "mechanics" of salvation. I don't deny that you're sectarian in attitude, as is much of the Roman Catholic church. But in fact what you call "speculative" is where the differences must be identified, rather than simply referring to a laundry list of the sacraments. And when these speculative, so-called matters, are paid attention to your apparent thesis (which you have provided the in nuce for) doesn't necessarily cleanly hold in the way you present it.
I used to have a Catholic friend (lost touch) who had his PhD on an aspect of Thomas' doctrine of predestination. He agreed with me in regard to the idea that there are certain overlapping correspondences between various trads within both Prot and Cath church vis a vis a theory of salvation. But of course he wasn't operating with the type of sectarian attitude you are. So there's that.
We are saved simply by the Grace of God in Christ through union with Him in and through the Holy Spirit. Your thinking on the Catholic Church as THE prolongation of Christ's body has no exegetical support in Holy Scripture. I suppose as self-referencing systems, in an abductive exercise, you can attempt to make your "argument." But to me it has to go deeper than that. Even so, V2 definitely contradicts the type of sectarianism you seem to operate with.
Again, if you can get your hands on it, I recommend Steven Strehle's study "The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel*. It might be too speculative for your lights, but that doesn't mean it doesn't puncture your basic thesis (which is accessible w/o reading your entire essay).
I grew up in a small town with a Methodist Chruch, Presbyterian, 3 non-denomationals and 13 different Lutheran churches. They all disagreed about everything except one. They hated Catholics. Polish and Catholic was especially egregious. You may want to consider, however, that either or arguments fail at the Truth as often as not. Look at the areas both may be correct and where both may be wrong. You'll find a certain myth or superstition is in play. The big one is authority. There isn't one. The concept of authority fails every time at Matthew 7:21
But there is more to this than @arcadiangossip appears to discern. The end of this part of the writing as summary points being analogous to a series of talking points the clearest sign of this deeper and most likely subconscious indication of that undiscerned context.
I refuse to believe that this analogy is the work of deep AI. It is the work of creativity which comes from the heart of God. Perhaps the correlation can become distinct to the author?
Yes, it is truly either/or. In an age of false ecumenism where everyone plays paddy-cake, nothing of substance takes place.
I have many Protestant friends and acquaintances—I live in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. But I don’t want them to stay there. I want them to know Jesus in His Church and in the Sacraments. I hope for their salvation, recognizing they could have invincible ignorance that will soften their particular judgement.
But it is false charity to ever tell them to stay where they are. There is no salvation outside the Church. Extra ecclesiam non salus. A hard truth, certainly. However, also a necessary one that cannot be papered over.
thanks for your thoughts. its your duty to make sure all friends and acquaintances are not invincibly ignorant. if theyve read john 6 they arent invincibly ignorant. this notion itself is highly precarious in how its used. as people often speak of ignorance as if it were a rival to baptism or Jesus Christ Himself, umm what removes original sin in the ignorant, what gives them the desire for the beatific vision? crickets... but God would be mean...
Yes. Since the 20th century—and especially in the aftermath of Vatican II—there has been a concerted effort to make the extraordinary means of salvation the ordinary means. With this rhetoric, everyone and their brother seems to have some sort of implicit baptism of desire, so that means no one needs to worry about missing out on the Beatific Vision. Especially with the “anonymous Christian” nonsense put out by Karl Rahner or the “omega point” practical pantheism/apokatastasis of Teilhard de Chardin (not to mention Balthasar’s “Dare we all hope?” silliness). However, this newfound optimism does not reflect the cohesive and historical nature of Catholic thought. For more, I recommend “Deadly Indifference” by Eric Sammons on such topics.
“But this being said, a question to start with is: why is it offensive to Protestants, who presumably want to get to the truth of the matter about who Jesus is and how he redeems souls, when they hear this opinion expressed?”
This is too simplistic. Plenty of Protestants today have the same view with respect to Catholics: that they lack saving faith, don’t have “a personal relationship with Jesus”, believe in salvation by works, etc.
It seems that the relevant contrast is between liberals and conservatives, not Protestants and Catholics. Fundamentalist Protestants would agree with most of what you say, simply reversing the labels of true and false.
Also, as you must know, there is a long tradition of Christian universalism. It’s not clear why the more tribal, exclusive, heretic-burning side of the tradition should be considered the more genuine. That’s an interpretive judgment, and it’s hard to see how what you’ve written here supports it.
i dont see this tradition of universalism in the roman catholic faith. there is in protestantism I realize and people like DBH try to play this up with their reading of some eastern saints, but its really absent from our tradition as I understand it. what´s the tradition`? where do i find it in Tradition, i.e. Magesterium?
my argument was there are diametric differences on essential matters between C and P.
differences on essential matters suggests a good and evil spirit is at play.
if an evil spirit is at play and causing disagreement about essential matters, people who follow the evil spirit will not be saved.
also its implausible Jesus Christ is indifferent to such enormous differences.
“my argument was there are diametric differences on essential matters between C and P.”
I guess my point is that the characterization of these differences as “essential matters” is question-begging. Which things to count as essential is part of what divides different streams of Christian tradition.
And from a more ecumenical perspective, it might be the sectarian division over what you call “essential matters” that is the “evil at play.”
It’s true that much of the explicit universalism (aside from some later mystics) seems to come from the eastern saints. But most of these writings predate the Great Schism, as far as I am aware.
in the topics i picked out I tried to give a little to both sides but i think the issues listed at the end are the essentials according to both catholic theology, I am a catholic, and protestant theology, I was a protestant. If you disagree, tell me where i am wrong, do the work, i can point to the very texts of the reformers, and will do so in subsequent posts to show the conflict is real and not apparent. but the writings of saints is not sacred tradition in the proper sense of the term in the western tradition. tradition is magesterium. universalism is not apart of the western tradition.
Isn’t that just begging the question? Privileging the magisterium is only valid if we already believe that the magisterium authoritatively represents “the tradition”. To do that is just to define “the tradition” in such a way that alternative viewpoints (such as those of universalists) are excluded on principle.
of course it is but its not clear if you have problems with my text as I was trying to deal with each on their own terms or in thier own language, or simply wanting to argue with me. but you somehow asking me to point to a tradition that I don´t myself believe in is equally question begging. i don´t accept any tradition outside of sacred tradition, you thinking this is unfair or disingenuous is only to say youre a prot. orthodox dont believe in your sense of tradition either. you shall know trees by their fruits, thats the reason to accept my tradition. its proved itself true in the lives of the saints. protestant ad hoc tradition doesnt produce sanctity. where are your protestant wonder-working saints?
Wow. Serious miscommunication here. We were discussing, I thought, whether your arguments would be persuasive to those who don’t already share your prior commitments. How you’ve construed questions about the general validity of your argumentative claims as attacks against your personal religious convictions is beyond me. “Question-begging” applies to the validity of arguments, not the veracity of beliefs.
In any case, it’s clear from your response that further discussion would not be useful.
i think you are right the people most offended are captured by a liberal or indifferentist spirit. the reason i find protestants are more upset by exclusive claims is twofole (1) protestantism itself originiates from this spirit. (2) protestantism cannot make exclusive claims as a catholic can without appearing utterly rediculous. there has never been any unanimity amongst the protestant sects on matters of doctrine, nor the ability to even meet to decide doctrine. thus any claim to exclusivity for a calvinist for example leads to him excluding the better part of the reformation and reformers as being saved. for catholics in contrast, the extensive nature of what is to be believed and the harmony amongst all the saints regarding these matters, makes the claims of exclusivity more feasible. of course it is going to be too simple as there are so many protestant sects and also flavors of catholicism right now. I am trying to speak broad strokes thanks for letting me know you thought I am getting this wrong. I appreciate the feedback.
in many senses, again, occult origins, historical revisionism, etc. but maybe look at my text on the religion of antichrist and I explain it a little more. but protestantism, like liberalism, significantly reduces what could be normative in the christian life in the name of christian freedom. this is the fundamental move of liberalism and it started at the liberal school of theology in tübingen at which martin lulther studied. this faculty was "liberal" in the exact sense I describe here on the issue of usury. bossuets book on the reformation proves that indifferentism had to be part and parcel of the reformation as they couldnt agree on much of anything.
As a staunch Protestant, I can agree with a lot of this. There are certain points where you point to contradictions that then you show aren’t actually contradictions. It would be interesting to deal with those.
Thanks for reading and offering a thoughtful comment. Whats an example of a apparent contradiction that i showed to be false? A main objective of this piece is to highlight the most sslient contradictions in language most protestants wouldnt object to.
No problem. I'm not sure I communicated well, however. I was on my phone :)
An example of what I am talking about would be the issue of Mary. You contrast 'honour' and 'worship'. But is not true that no true protestant would object to Mary being honoured... and all true Catholics would be opposed to her being worshiped?
So the actual question is, "Is the way that protestants treat Mary a failure to give her her proper honour" vs "Is the way that Catholics treat Mary a form of worship?"
If a protestant has a problem with the way Scripture treats Mary... that is against his religion. He should approve of it. Conversely if a Catholic walks around talking of Mary as if she was another God, and one that he likes better than that Christ fellow or that God the Father with a beard who is always smiting"... that goes against Catholic doctrine, eh?
In this text i am setting the stage by trying to use the accusations or language of each side. Cant tell you how many times ive been accused of worshipping mary.
Yes. But my point is that you consider it an 'accusation'. If you found a Catholic that DID worship Mary, you would correct them. Just as if I found a member of my church that thought that Mary shouldn't be honoured.
IE We disagree how Mary should be treated, but our contradiction should not be stated as 'they worship Mary and we don't' or 'They don't think Mary should be honoured."
Does that make sense? That seemed to happen several times.
You can write your own book. I am going by what is typical. What you describe is so atypical it beggars belief. Basically no prots honor mary. Scripture gives her the title blessed, its never given to her.
I'm afraid that I miscommunicated. What I was trying to say is that official Catholic doctrine (as I understand it) is that Mary should be honoured, but not worshiped.
Official protestant doctrine is... that Mary should be honoured, but not worshiped.
It is the way that those doctrines are drilled down on and practiced that is different. John Gill, for example, was comfortable saying Mary was the 'Mother of God'. I would not use that phrase.
its great that you are trying to follow Jesus Christ and were given graces of conversion.
This sort of biblicalism is not biblical. St Paul himself says that 2 thess 2:15 oral and written tradition must be upheld. so the bible alone stuff is not biblical. St paul also says in 1 tim 3:15 that the church, not the bible, is the "ground and pillar of the truth." Again this conforms with the catholic teaching, and the historical reality that the church compliled, canonized, and interprets the bible. if you are a protestant the reformers removed books from the canon so that is also a problem. the bible doesnt tell us which books belong in the bible, the church tells us this.
“For the vast majority of human history, a man indifferent to the flag of his country was not considered a patriot at all.” When do you think national flags became common???
thanks for the correction. i think you are right what I said here was overstated. i do think flags predate the nation state, we see them in medieval art and depictions of battles and in the symbolic representation of cities and kingdoms. the crusaders fought under a sign, islam as well. constantine fought under a sign. so i dont think the general anthropolical claim is so off. devotion to a place or community is often mediated by devotoin to a sign. ive never really delved into the anthropological evidence as to how this has expressed itself in varios primitive cultures but it´d be a very interesting project I imagine. so are you just nit picking or do you think I am way off in thinking this is a general feature of human nature and culture what can be a source of strength or patirotism to individuals and communities.
Sectarianism isn't of the Gospel. There are indeed fundamentally different beliefs, in principle, undergirding superficial glances at Catholicism and Protestantism. But to take a more catholic view of the matter is a matter of ad fontes. This was the impulse of Luther and many Christian humanists of his time and prior. But it depends on which swath of Protestantism you are referring to. It is too reductionistic just to say "Catholics against Protestants," even Catholics have a continuum. There are many scholastic reformed and Lutheran Protestants, for example, because of their appropriation of Thomistic themes, that are of a piece with Catholic thinking; even tho they assert and attempt to argue otherwise. I would suggest a reading of Stephen Strehle's book *The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel*. Things aren't as neat as you seem to have them laid out. I personally believe there are Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox who "saved," and this despite any sectarianism and adiaphora that might be present or elevated to essentials of the faith. https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Roots-Protestant-Gospel-Reformation/dp/9004102035/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1KER0GLWHHC3I&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.glrklZ3UvHmKIjslmK2Gb7FORUKrgA6CPcZmUI9XkT0.MM3pWD2CWv76n_8dk7r_ojiUI6aMQUZXXVWhdSBr1Jo&dib_tag=se&keywords=stephen+strehle+catholic+roots&qid=1716521872&sprefix=stephen+strehle+catholic+root%2Caps%2C165&sr=8-1
Deal with the specifics of my argument please. It's typical prot arrogance to lecture me about how to be a Catholic. It is this simple prots reject 6 of 7 sacraments, Mary, the working of the Holy Spirit in tradition, und und und. It's not cut from the same cloth sorry.
Blep. You need to learn precision. I read your intro, skimmed the body, and read the conclusion. How many words is your post here? Tl;dr. Not really interested in the exchange tho. Your argument is non-starting next to the Gospel. QED
Thanks for the pointer pal. I fear you are right. I'll work on it.
Not reading and commenting as if you read, impressive.
I read enough, like I said. But yeah, it seems to me that your conclusion should synopsize enough in order to allow your readers to come to a general judgment about the soundness of your total argument. But yeah, I don't have the time or the motivation to read your paper on this. But based on your conclusion and intro it seems to me that your argument ends up collapsing the Gospel reality itself into its many implications, one way or the other. The Gospel is greater than its many parts, and some of those are closer to the center or core than the others. You've seemingly elevated liturgical matters as if they represent the core of the Gospel, and to me that represents a serious category mistake. Beyond that, and more to the material theological issues present within a Catholic understanding of soteriology, is how infused grace (as a quality) ostensibly functions within the souls of the elect; i.e., abstract from God's person and work, as it were. As if the elect soul can cooperate with God in meriting salvation (so cooperative grace). The Reformed orthodox have taken this type of Aristotelian/Thomist schema over into their soteriology, which is to my earlier point, which in the end somewhat undercuts your apparent thesis on exclusivity vis a vis salvation/justification. IOW, there is continuity between some Catholic iterations of salvation theory and some Protestant iterations. Things are more complex than you appear to make them. And that's all I've got for this.
You didn't read my argument. This sort of arrogance is special special. Your comment here, once again lecturing me about how to be Catholic, when your comment demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the matter itself. Ie We are saved by the ministry of Jesus Christ through sacraments. You reject 6 of 7. Hmmm better to focus on soteriology as if it's merely a speculative matter of theologically penetrating the mystery of human freedom and divine providence. It only demonstrates your cluelessness of the orthodox or Catholic pov, little more. If you're a synergist then cooperate and get in the arc!
There is nothing speculative about understanding 1) a theory of authority, and 2) how that subsequently impacts a theory of the church and salvation. I am not suggesting that there aren't substantive liturgical and doctrinal differences b/t Roman Catholicism and Protestantism simpliciter. But you're simply presuming upon a self-referencing and thus self-validating frame of reference vis a vis the absolute credibility of the Catholic magisterium. You seemingly offer no nuance, or cannot recognize that within Catholicism itself there are variances in understanding the "mechanics" of salvation. I don't deny that you're sectarian in attitude, as is much of the Roman Catholic church. But in fact what you call "speculative" is where the differences must be identified, rather than simply referring to a laundry list of the sacraments. And when these speculative, so-called matters, are paid attention to your apparent thesis (which you have provided the in nuce for) doesn't necessarily cleanly hold in the way you present it.
I used to have a Catholic friend (lost touch) who had his PhD on an aspect of Thomas' doctrine of predestination. He agreed with me in regard to the idea that there are certain overlapping correspondences between various trads within both Prot and Cath church vis a vis a theory of salvation. But of course he wasn't operating with the type of sectarian attitude you are. So there's that.
We are saved simply by the Grace of God in Christ through union with Him in and through the Holy Spirit. Your thinking on the Catholic Church as THE prolongation of Christ's body has no exegetical support in Holy Scripture. I suppose as self-referencing systems, in an abductive exercise, you can attempt to make your "argument." But to me it has to go deeper than that. Even so, V2 definitely contradicts the type of sectarianism you seem to operate with.
Again, if you can get your hands on it, I recommend Steven Strehle's study "The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel*. It might be too speculative for your lights, but that doesn't mean it doesn't puncture your basic thesis (which is accessible w/o reading your entire essay).
I grew up in a small town with a Methodist Chruch, Presbyterian, 3 non-denomationals and 13 different Lutheran churches. They all disagreed about everything except one. They hated Catholics. Polish and Catholic was especially egregious. You may want to consider, however, that either or arguments fail at the Truth as often as not. Look at the areas both may be correct and where both may be wrong. You'll find a certain myth or superstition is in play. The big one is authority. There isn't one. The concept of authority fails every time at Matthew 7:21
I love the medical analogy.
But there is more to this than @arcadiangossip appears to discern. The end of this part of the writing as summary points being analogous to a series of talking points the clearest sign of this deeper and most likely subconscious indication of that undiscerned context.
I refuse to believe that this analogy is the work of deep AI. It is the work of creativity which comes from the heart of God. Perhaps the correlation can become distinct to the author?
Time will tell.
Yes, it is truly either/or. In an age of false ecumenism where everyone plays paddy-cake, nothing of substance takes place.
I have many Protestant friends and acquaintances—I live in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. But I don’t want them to stay there. I want them to know Jesus in His Church and in the Sacraments. I hope for their salvation, recognizing they could have invincible ignorance that will soften their particular judgement.
But it is false charity to ever tell them to stay where they are. There is no salvation outside the Church. Extra ecclesiam non salus. A hard truth, certainly. However, also a necessary one that cannot be papered over.
thanks for your thoughts. its your duty to make sure all friends and acquaintances are not invincibly ignorant. if theyve read john 6 they arent invincibly ignorant. this notion itself is highly precarious in how its used. as people often speak of ignorance as if it were a rival to baptism or Jesus Christ Himself, umm what removes original sin in the ignorant, what gives them the desire for the beatific vision? crickets... but God would be mean...
Yes. Since the 20th century—and especially in the aftermath of Vatican II—there has been a concerted effort to make the extraordinary means of salvation the ordinary means. With this rhetoric, everyone and their brother seems to have some sort of implicit baptism of desire, so that means no one needs to worry about missing out on the Beatific Vision. Especially with the “anonymous Christian” nonsense put out by Karl Rahner or the “omega point” practical pantheism/apokatastasis of Teilhard de Chardin (not to mention Balthasar’s “Dare we all hope?” silliness). However, this newfound optimism does not reflect the cohesive and historical nature of Catholic thought. For more, I recommend “Deadly Indifference” by Eric Sammons on such topics.
https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Indifference-Church-Mission-Reclaim/dp/1644132508
well put. thanks for the book rec. i hesitate to call it optimism because its really a darkness and obscurity.
Ich schätze Ihre Argumentation im Stil von Thomas von Aquin und Ihren Verweis auf die Heilige Schrift. Das ist ein gut gemachter Aufsatz.
WOW! I love your thought process and the way you express it in word written!
“But this being said, a question to start with is: why is it offensive to Protestants, who presumably want to get to the truth of the matter about who Jesus is and how he redeems souls, when they hear this opinion expressed?”
This is too simplistic. Plenty of Protestants today have the same view with respect to Catholics: that they lack saving faith, don’t have “a personal relationship with Jesus”, believe in salvation by works, etc.
It seems that the relevant contrast is between liberals and conservatives, not Protestants and Catholics. Fundamentalist Protestants would agree with most of what you say, simply reversing the labels of true and false.
Also, as you must know, there is a long tradition of Christian universalism. It’s not clear why the more tribal, exclusive, heretic-burning side of the tradition should be considered the more genuine. That’s an interpretive judgment, and it’s hard to see how what you’ve written here supports it.
i dont see this tradition of universalism in the roman catholic faith. there is in protestantism I realize and people like DBH try to play this up with their reading of some eastern saints, but its really absent from our tradition as I understand it. what´s the tradition`? where do i find it in Tradition, i.e. Magesterium?
my argument was there are diametric differences on essential matters between C and P.
differences on essential matters suggests a good and evil spirit is at play.
if an evil spirit is at play and causing disagreement about essential matters, people who follow the evil spirit will not be saved.
also its implausible Jesus Christ is indifferent to such enormous differences.
“my argument was there are diametric differences on essential matters between C and P.”
I guess my point is that the characterization of these differences as “essential matters” is question-begging. Which things to count as essential is part of what divides different streams of Christian tradition.
And from a more ecumenical perspective, it might be the sectarian division over what you call “essential matters” that is the “evil at play.”
It’s true that much of the explicit universalism (aside from some later mystics) seems to come from the eastern saints. But most of these writings predate the Great Schism, as far as I am aware.
in the topics i picked out I tried to give a little to both sides but i think the issues listed at the end are the essentials according to both catholic theology, I am a catholic, and protestant theology, I was a protestant. If you disagree, tell me where i am wrong, do the work, i can point to the very texts of the reformers, and will do so in subsequent posts to show the conflict is real and not apparent. but the writings of saints is not sacred tradition in the proper sense of the term in the western tradition. tradition is magesterium. universalism is not apart of the western tradition.
“tradition is magesterium”.
Isn’t that just begging the question? Privileging the magisterium is only valid if we already believe that the magisterium authoritatively represents “the tradition”. To do that is just to define “the tradition” in such a way that alternative viewpoints (such as those of universalists) are excluded on principle.
of course it is but its not clear if you have problems with my text as I was trying to deal with each on their own terms or in thier own language, or simply wanting to argue with me. but you somehow asking me to point to a tradition that I don´t myself believe in is equally question begging. i don´t accept any tradition outside of sacred tradition, you thinking this is unfair or disingenuous is only to say youre a prot. orthodox dont believe in your sense of tradition either. you shall know trees by their fruits, thats the reason to accept my tradition. its proved itself true in the lives of the saints. protestant ad hoc tradition doesnt produce sanctity. where are your protestant wonder-working saints?
Wow. Serious miscommunication here. We were discussing, I thought, whether your arguments would be persuasive to those who don’t already share your prior commitments. How you’ve construed questions about the general validity of your argumentative claims as attacks against your personal religious convictions is beyond me. “Question-begging” applies to the validity of arguments, not the veracity of beliefs.
In any case, it’s clear from your response that further discussion would not be useful.
i think you are right the people most offended are captured by a liberal or indifferentist spirit. the reason i find protestants are more upset by exclusive claims is twofole (1) protestantism itself originiates from this spirit. (2) protestantism cannot make exclusive claims as a catholic can without appearing utterly rediculous. there has never been any unanimity amongst the protestant sects on matters of doctrine, nor the ability to even meet to decide doctrine. thus any claim to exclusivity for a calvinist for example leads to him excluding the better part of the reformation and reformers as being saved. for catholics in contrast, the extensive nature of what is to be believed and the harmony amongst all the saints regarding these matters, makes the claims of exclusivity more feasible. of course it is going to be too simple as there are so many protestant sects and also flavors of catholicism right now. I am trying to speak broad strokes thanks for letting me know you thought I am getting this wrong. I appreciate the feedback.
“protestantism itself originates from this spirit“
In what sense? Were the early reformers liberal and/or indifferent?
in many senses, again, occult origins, historical revisionism, etc. but maybe look at my text on the religion of antichrist and I explain it a little more. but protestantism, like liberalism, significantly reduces what could be normative in the christian life in the name of christian freedom. this is the fundamental move of liberalism and it started at the liberal school of theology in tübingen at which martin lulther studied. this faculty was "liberal" in the exact sense I describe here on the issue of usury. bossuets book on the reformation proves that indifferentism had to be part and parcel of the reformation as they couldnt agree on much of anything.
As a staunch Protestant, I can agree with a lot of this. There are certain points where you point to contradictions that then you show aren’t actually contradictions. It would be interesting to deal with those.
Thanks for reading and offering a thoughtful comment. Whats an example of a apparent contradiction that i showed to be false? A main objective of this piece is to highlight the most sslient contradictions in language most protestants wouldnt object to.
BTW, I'm always up for discussion. Just let me know. Maybe we can do an exchange.
No problem. I'm not sure I communicated well, however. I was on my phone :)
An example of what I am talking about would be the issue of Mary. You contrast 'honour' and 'worship'. But is not true that no true protestant would object to Mary being honoured... and all true Catholics would be opposed to her being worshiped?
So the actual question is, "Is the way that protestants treat Mary a failure to give her her proper honour" vs "Is the way that Catholics treat Mary a form of worship?"
If a protestant has a problem with the way Scripture treats Mary... that is against his religion. He should approve of it. Conversely if a Catholic walks around talking of Mary as if she was another God, and one that he likes better than that Christ fellow or that God the Father with a beard who is always smiting"... that goes against Catholic doctrine, eh?
In this text i am setting the stage by trying to use the accusations or language of each side. Cant tell you how many times ive been accused of worshipping mary.
Yes. But my point is that you consider it an 'accusation'. If you found a Catholic that DID worship Mary, you would correct them. Just as if I found a member of my church that thought that Mary shouldn't be honoured.
IE We disagree how Mary should be treated, but our contradiction should not be stated as 'they worship Mary and we don't' or 'They don't think Mary should be honoured."
Does that make sense? That seemed to happen several times.
You can write your own book. I am going by what is typical. What you describe is so atypical it beggars belief. Basically no prots honor mary. Scripture gives her the title blessed, its never given to her.
I'm afraid that I miscommunicated. What I was trying to say is that official Catholic doctrine (as I understand it) is that Mary should be honoured, but not worshiped.
Official protestant doctrine is... that Mary should be honoured, but not worshiped.
It is the way that those doctrines are drilled down on and practiced that is different. John Gill, for example, was comfortable saying Mary was the 'Mother of God'. I would not use that phrase.
When I became a christian I knew I wanted to be a bible believing Christian. Not catholic, not protestant, not Mormon, not methodist or Anglican.
Only bible believing Christian.
its great that you are trying to follow Jesus Christ and were given graces of conversion.
This sort of biblicalism is not biblical. St Paul himself says that 2 thess 2:15 oral and written tradition must be upheld. so the bible alone stuff is not biblical. St paul also says in 1 tim 3:15 that the church, not the bible, is the "ground and pillar of the truth." Again this conforms with the catholic teaching, and the historical reality that the church compliled, canonized, and interprets the bible. if you are a protestant the reformers removed books from the canon so that is also a problem. the bible doesnt tell us which books belong in the bible, the church tells us this.
Good luck with your understanding.
“For the vast majority of human history, a man indifferent to the flag of his country was not considered a patriot at all.” When do you think national flags became common???
thanks for the correction. i think you are right what I said here was overstated. i do think flags predate the nation state, we see them in medieval art and depictions of battles and in the symbolic representation of cities and kingdoms. the crusaders fought under a sign, islam as well. constantine fought under a sign. so i dont think the general anthropolical claim is so off. devotion to a place or community is often mediated by devotoin to a sign. ive never really delved into the anthropological evidence as to how this has expressed itself in varios primitive cultures but it´d be a very interesting project I imagine. so are you just nit picking or do you think I am way off in thinking this is a general feature of human nature and culture what can be a source of strength or patirotism to individuals and communities.