Into the Wardrobe

Actually, the Bible does emphasize that tt is the only source of general revelation. Several times, Paul warned that, if any one comes with any gospel different other than the one brought by the Apostles (and I don't mean popes - I mean the people who walked with Jesus), then don't accept it.

I noticed when Stanley was writing about tradition, he mentioned that the producers of Tradition did so by Authority and grace. Ignoring the fact that no one but other men gave them the authority - he failed to mention inspiration. What makes me trust the scripture is that I'm am convinced that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is markable that he left that point out.

But taking the Marian dogmas as an example - the Bible, no where points to Mary. She's not a major player in the Bible. Rasing her up to the position she occupies in the Catholic church and a position that she doesn't share (people pray to Mary, people venerate Mary) does not point to Jesus - it points to Mary. It points so strogly to Mary that I have had discussions with people who say things lie, "Never send a son to do a mother's work.".The church should always point to Jesus - it should never weaken that ponting finger tha points straight at Jesus.

Why should we care what other people think? The strongest (and very last) demand place don the church by the Earthly Jesus Christ was, "Go ye unto all the world." Our mission is to win the world to Jesus. I've found that, with the people I evangelize, if I preach the church, I've lost them already. If I preach Jesus, I have some hope of getting through to them. They know altogether enough about the church to last them a lifetime. You cannot separate the church into bad chuch and good church. The church is responsible for it all.

Stanley, that you see more and more evidence of your new tradition as you go along is quite predctable psychologically. Your mind is restructuring around your new beliefs. It doesn't necessariy mean that what you're seeing is actually there. Things like cognitive dissonance practically assures that, if you don't guard against it, you will begin validating your choices simply because you made them. I see that, rather than you learning the error of your old ways, you're heavy into learning new errors.

Amen, Wolf!

I don't know if you're fooling yourself or not - if you're not gaurding against the psychological mechanisms that make difficult choices more palatable, then you most likely are. I think you're in error because I've studied the Catholic traditions extensively and have found them wanting badly. Perhaps you know something I don't know, but if you are, you're not telling. Perhaps it's one of those things you can't put into words, but, if so, the Cathoic church had better find some way to put it into words.

For long years, the Cathoic church considered itself the sole avenue to salvation (the church, not Jesus). Knowing the Cathoic churches' traditions, I can see how that might be (If those traditions were true). THe fact that the RCC changed their stance on Protestantism doesn't change that. It only means thatthe wanted to compete in the churc market and they couldn't do that effectively if they kept bad mouthing other denominations so they decided to lighten up. So if they are the only path to salvation, and they are responsible for the great commission, they'd better find a way to get their message through to people. They're falling don on the job. While there are people flowin from the Protestant chrches to the Catholic - there are quite a lot of them going in the other direction.

And, Stanley, I have no stake in denomenationalism. I could be quite as comfortable in the Catholic church as any other denomenaton. (A lot of the rituals are downright fun!) What prevents me is simply that I think Roman Catholic tradition is wrong. Period. It's certainly not because of all the bad things the RCC has done. The SBC (and certainly the BC) has done some pretty awful things, too. It's simply because I can't convince myself that RCCism is right in the beliefs.

Also, remember tha I'm not debating against Roman Catholicism (nor will I ever again take that bottomless task up - it isn't worth it - RCs are not going to hell because they're RCs). I am debating against denominational tradition, though. It hobbles evangelism and that does make it a worthy enemy.

I contemplated replying to this yesterday but didn't cos I thought my contribution might be superfluous at best as I am not a believer. But since the thread has been quiet since then I thought I'd shove in my ten cents. As an outsider I don't understand either the way that the RCC church seems to deviate from the bible in many significant ways - which I CAN list, if anyone wants me to - and why it teaches things that just don't seem to be present at all in the New Testament. I've wondered too why all the Catholics I have met seem to identify themselves first and foremost as Catholics - if you ask their religion they will say 'I am Catholic' before 'I am Christian.'

I am not trying to 'Catholic bash'.. merely giving the perspective of an outside observer. Other outside observers may have entirely different perspectives.

Jo,

When a person tells you he's Catholic, he's telling you exactly what he believes in the shortest way possible, so you don't have to spend months trying to figure out what all he [or she, like a Dina] believes.

The biggest difference between a Protestant and a Catholic, for me, is that one believes in transubstantiation [The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist] and the other does not. It means that we can not partake of each other's communion.

Knowing whether a person is Protestant or Catholic gives me a good idea of the point of view that the person is coming from. Not for the purposes of judging the person, but to help me understand the person's position on things.

godsdog, who knows where the finger is pointing

::Stanley, that you see more and more evidence of your new tradition as you go along is quite predctable psychologically. Your mind is restructuring around your new beliefs. It doesn't necessariy mean that what you're seeing is actually there. Things like cognitive dissonance practically assures that, if you don't guard against it, you will begin validating your choices simply because you made them. I see that, rather than you learning the error of your old ways, you're heavy into learning new errors.

I have to say, this argument is just pitiful and desperate. All you have to do is reverse it and apply it to yourself. Or reverse it in reaction to Stanley:

"[Wolf] that you see more and more evidence [in reaction to Stanley's] new tradition as you go along is quite pred[i]ctable psychologically. Your mind is restructuring around your new beliefs [in reaction to Stanley's]. It doesn't necessari[l]y mean that what you're seeing is actually there. Things like cognitive dissonance practically assures that, if you don't guard against it, you will begin validating your choices simply because you made them. I see that, rather than you learning the error of your old ways, you're heavy into learning new errors."

This is not an intellectual argument at all (though it may satisfy you simply because "you made it"), it merely leaves us begging for an intellectual resolution.

You're free to reply but I won't bother doing so to this type of stuff any longer...

::Being a non-denominatial Christian myself, I am promped to clarify this statement some more...

Boromir, you may have provided sufficient logic for me to determine the answer to this question myself (forgive me if you have), but I still have to ask: Is non-denominationalism a denomination?

Jesse