[CS-FSLUG] Forward or Backward WAS: Open Source Theology

[Michael Bradley, Jr.]

On 6/15/06, Ritchie, Josiah S. <jritchie at bible.edu> wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
> > From: Michael Bradley, Jr.
> > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:53 AM
> > To: A Christian virtual Free Software and Linux Users Group.
> > Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Open Source Theology
>
> > How can a discussion which is about "methods of doing church" fail to
> > incorporate the Church Fathers? Sorry, I couldn't resist ... ;-)
>
> Not directly addressing you point, as is my habit, you bring out a point
> I've been mulling over. It seems there are 2 paths to respond to the errors
> of modernism. Forward (emerging) or Backward (to history of the church);
> however, many of the same problems and characteristics exist between the two
> responses. As we move away from modern in either direction, the waters seem
> to get muddy. If you go to emerging, the path doesn't yet exist. If you go
> backward, the history exists, but the question of the validity of the path
> of history remains. In other words, the path is heavily overgrown. In either
> response you have to resolve who or what you trust. Perhaps that could be
> rephrased as you have to decide how God speaks to his people. Those moving
> forward in emergent ways seem to be trusting scripture, experiential
> feelings, common culture and so forth. What they don't trust is the past
> outside scripture. Those moving back and depending on the history beyond
> scripture have to affirm the dependability of certain sources of history in
> order to move forward.



The problem you've described above has troubled the Church in her sinful
members in every age.

You wrote: "In either response you have to resolve who or what you trust."

And that is exactly right. Why do I trust Sts. Peter and Paul to begin
with?  Why do I believe that Mattthew, Mark, Luke and John belong in the NT,
and not the Gospel of Thomas? Why do I (rhetorical questions) trust the
Baptist minister whose altar call I responded to? What if he teaches me in a
way that is not compatible with the written extant teachings of St. Ignatius
of Antioch who was appointed bishop by the Apostle St. Peter himself?  Am I
free to reject the tenets of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed promulgated
by the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381? What about
the Athanasian Creed <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm>? Why do I
believe and worship a certain way when it comes to the Lord's Supper and not
as, say, St. John Chrysostom did in the 4th Century A.D. (and as the Greek
Orthodox do today)?



As an example of the overgrown history path, Michael, your view of church
> history and mine differ. As Catholic, your viewpoint is certainly very
> different from mine as an "evangelical fundamentalist".



It's always good to discuss things, so that understanding (yours and mine)
can increase.  :-)


Like any good protestant, I've been taught the "evils" of the Catholic
> Church. From the teachers of the reformation and even down to the men who
> formally adopted the Nicean Creed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.,
> how do we know that they were following Paul's command you quoted, "So then,
> brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,
> either by word of mouth or by letter." The Catholic church certainly has a
> much firmer line drawn throughout history, but still, the question remains
> if it is valid spiritually or man-made. I'm not suggesting we solve that as
> it would likely be divisive, just speaking to the difficulty.



You're right, we probably can't "solve this problem" in this medium.  But
you're asking the right questions? And that being the case from the
Protestant or Catholic points-of-view, or otherwise.  :-)

To get a basic understanding of the Catholic Church's internal perspective
on the nature and interpretation of Divine Revelation, I highly recommend
you read the following; it's not so technical and full of Catholic
thelogical terminology that a non-Catholic of average education cannot
understand it's main points:


Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation<http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html>

(one of the sixteen
documents<http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2ALL.HTM>of the Second
Vatican Council<http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/>
)



My understanding of the emergent path is that it is mostly an emergence from
> modern evangelicalism. Has there been any "emergent" activity among the
> Catholic world that you are aware of?
>
>
There are various groups, smaller and larger, that have broken (sometimes
formally, sometimes only materially) from the main body of the Catholic
Church in every century.  More often than not their principle motivation
was/is that Church leadership is "steering the boat" in the wrong direction,
and the splinter-group hopes to go the better/correct route following that
split.  An example in this century of a group that formally split-off would
be the SSPX <http://www.sspx.org/>. An example of the same from the previous
century would be the Old
Catholics<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11235b.htm>.
A Catholic group that is active today and which represents a material split
would be the membership of Call To
Action<http://www.cta-usa.org/index2.php?dest=history.html>
.

>From the Catholic Church's internal perspective, the 21 Ecumenical
Councils<http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm>represent
the clearest points along the Church's history when she has
"emerged," or  developed/clarified her teachings, reformed her institutions,
etc.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Michael Bradley, Jr.

--
My home on the Net ::
   http://www.michaelsbradleyjr.net/

IC XC NIKA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ofb.biz/pipermail/christiansource_ofb.biz/attachments/20060615/088a923e/attachment.htm>