Can Christianity Adapt to Survive?

[metis]

Christianity started as being conservative.

Absolutely false as Jesus' teachings were quite radical, thus leading to ending the 613 Mosaic Laws as found in Torah.

Then under the RCC, it became corrupt.

How can an institution be "corrupt"? For example, is the United States corrupt? Some people within an institution may be corrupt, but institutions themselves logically cannot be.

BTW, that "corrupt" church selected the canon of your Bible, so if you think they were so corrupt, then maybe give your Bible to someone who respects it and the people who chose it.

Then the reformation turned it back to fundamentalism.

Absolutely false, especially considering that the canon of your Bible was not found at the time of Jesus and the apostles as it was written decades later and selected centuries later by the church that you hate. Sola scriptura was not the hallmark or belief of the early church, and it didn't make it's appearance until about 15 centuries from the church's beginning.

Is the above what your church/denomination teaches you? If so, let me recommend you do some studying to see just how bogus these points are. Even Wikipedia can help eliminate these biases, such as: Biblical canon - Wikipedia

Christianity - Wikipedia

Catholic Church - Wikipedia

Etc.

 

[joe1776]

Jesus' main teachings deal with faith, love for all, and justice/fairness, and you're worried about the music?

I think the poster you quoted offered a trivial reason. I won't try to guess what was in his mind, but I think most Catholic traditionalists liked the Church better when it claimed to be the only path to Heaven. Don't you?

 

[metis]

I think the poster you quoted offered a trivial reason. I won't try to guess what was in his mind, but I think most Catholic traditionalists liked the Church better when it claimed to be the only path to Heaven. Don't you?

I knew a fair number of people who resented the elimination of the Latin mass, but I don't know if they were in a majority or a minority.

The CC never officially taught it was the only path to heaven, but I do know there were some Catholic clergy who taught that.

The closest it got to what you say is that if one heard and understood the Catholic positions, including that of its primacy, but they then rejected it, then their salvation could indeed be in jeopardy. Even Origen in the 2nd century questioned whether there was salvation outside the church that he said was "the scarlet thread that binds", and he finished with asking who would be so foolish as to try? Please note that these are his words, not mine.

 

[joe1776]

I knew a fair number of people who resented the elimination of the Latin mass, but I don't know if they were in a majority or a minority.

The CC never officially taught it was the only path to heaven, but I do know there were some Catholic clergy who taught that.

The closest it got to what you say is that if one heard and understood the Catholic positions, including that of its primacy, but they then rejected it, then their salvation could indeed be in jeopardy. Even Origen in the 2nd century questioned whether there was salvation outside the church that he said was "the scarlet thread that binds", and he finished with asking who would be so foolish as to try? Please note that these are his words, not mine.

Before Vatican II, the Church consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity:

The fate of non-Catholics, as stated prior to Vatican II:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 CE) is considered "one of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages..." 1 At the Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council) he wrote:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed....Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE) wrote a Papal bull in 1441 CE titled Cantate Domino. One paragraph reads:

"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Can non-Catholics be saved, according to the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[omega2xx]

Absolutely false because if Jesus and the apostles were "conservatives they would have stuck with the entire 613 Mosaic Laws as found in Torah. They were actually quite radical in their approach.

You don't understand conservative Christianity. Sticking to the law is not conservative, it is leagalism, which is rejected in NT teaching.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Was there some corruption in the CC (it was not the "RCC" back then)? Of course.

Right CC. It had become corrupt ,that is why the reformation happened.

Has there been any corruption in your denomination? You know there's been some.

I am sure there has been some corrupt people in my denomination(PCA), but not with the denomination. They started with sola scriptura and have stuck with it. All of doctrines can be supported by Scripture.

Churches are not corrupt, but some people in churches, including some leaders, well may be.

When the theology of a denomination become corrupt the denomination is corrupt.

BTW, that "corrupt" CC chose the Bible you use, so since you feel the church was corrupt, then maybe pass your Bible on to someone who believes in it and understands where it comes from and how.

Surely you know the Protestant canon is not the same as the Catholic canon.

Not really. The Christian Bible did not exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles. Protestants ignore the fact that Jesus said that the church he started would be guided until the end of time. Since Protestant churches did not exist back then, ...

The CC also did not exist at that time. But there were writings that were passed from church to church, although probably limited in circulation.

 

[metis]

Before Vatican II, the Church consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity:

The fate of non-Catholics, as stated prior to Vatican II:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 CE) is considered "one of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages..." 1 At the Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council) he wrote:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed....Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE) wrote a Papal bull in 1441 CE titled Cantate Domino. One paragraph reads:

"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Can non-Catholics be saved, according to the Roman Catholic Church?

As mentioned, there were those who did take such positions as you cite, but generally there was always the question as to how could God condemn a person who never heard the gospel, for example? No doubt that Vatican II helped to solidify and clarify the position that shows up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Now, according to the Catechism, I cannot go to heaven because I understand the basic teachings of the church but reject them. When I go to mass with my wife, I don't participate.

But then along come Pope Francis who definitely is on a different page than what's found in the Catechism, so maybe there's a chance for me yet.

 

[omega2xx]

I was directing those comments at Brickjectivity mate, he is a Quaker Christian, so he probably has some different views on what "God" means compared to you. The term "God" means different things to different people, I imagine I could get some surprisingly different definitions from the people you share a pew with on a Sunday morning (I know I could! ). I don't believe a deity or deities exist, so for me "God" is a term describing a fictional character, the universe, or any other concept, and I find it an endlessly changeable term depending on who I am talking to.

Its an open forum. I get to stick my 2 cents worth in anytime I feel like it.

Again, I was talking to Quaker, not a Presbyterian, so agreed we probably have a lot less in common.

One think Quakers and Presbyterians agree on is that there a God.

 

[omega2xx]

Absolutely false as Jesus' teachings were quite radical, thus leading to ending the 613 Mosaic Laws as found in Torah.

You are wrong on both counts. Different doesn't mean radical. Jeswus did not enc all of the 6:13. He kept the moral lalw as part of Christianity.

How can an institution be "corrupt"? For example, is the United States corrupt? Some people within an institution may be corrupt, but institutions themselves logically cannot be.<<

A church becomes corrupt when it sells indulgences, and adopts non Biblical doctrines.

BTW, that "corrupt" church selected the canon of your Bible, so if you think they were so corrupt, then maybe give your Bible to someone who respects it and the people who chose it.

I just showed you why that is not true.

Absolutely false, especially considering that the canon of your Bible was not found at the time of Jesus and the apostles as it was written decades later and selected centuries later by the church that you hate. Sola scriptura was not the hallmark or belief of the early church, and it didn't make it's appearance until about 15 centuries from the church's beginning.

That is why the reformation was necessry.

Is the above what your church/denomination teaches you? If so, let me recommend you do some studying to see just how bogus these points are. Even Wikipedia can help eliminate these biases, such as: Biblical canon - Wikipedia

Christianity - Wikipedia

Catholic Church - Wikipedia

Etc.

If you get your theology from wikipedia, not wonder so much of it is in error.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Its an open forum. I get to stick my 2 cents worth in anytime I feel like it.

Yeah you missed my point mate, I'm not saying you have no business commenting on our discussion, just that Brick's concept of "God" is almost certainly different from yours, people call themselves Christian and say they believe in "God" but can have quite different concepts about what that deity actually is e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seven Day Adventists, Moonies, Quakers, and Presbyterians all call themselves Christian but all have different "God" concepts. It is erroneous to talk about the Christian god as though it is universally understood to mean one thing only, because it isn't.

One think Quakers and Presbyterians agree on is that there a God.

Sure, but not necessarily the same god.

 

[joe1776]

As mentioned, there were those who did take such positions as you cite, but generally there was always the question as to how could God condemn a person who never heard the gospel, for example? No doubt that Vatican II helped to solidify and clarify the position that shows up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In 1215, we have Pope Innocent saying, "There is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all can be saved." Other popes followed confirming the proclamation. Then, sometime in the 1960s, we got a clarification of what they said. So, I see two possible explanations:

1. It took the Church 750 years to clarify, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike, that its position was not that it has exclusive rights to Heaven.

2. The Church changed its position after Vatican II but, consistent with its long-standing policy of never admitting to change, it offered the "clarification" after 750 years.

You seem to be willing to accept explanation #1. To me, explanation #2 seems far more likely to be true.

 

[metis]

You don't understand conservative Christianity. And you are being disingenuous because your statement was not about conservative Chistianity" but was this: "Christianity started as being conservative."

Secondly, I grew up in a conservative (fundamentalist) Protestant church, had thoughts about going into the ministry, therefore your slam against me on this is therefore pathetic on both counts.

Right CC. It had become corrupt ,that is why the reformation happened.

Again, it is not ever remotely logical that an institution, like the CC or your denomination, can be "corrupt", and your continued use of stereotyping is nauseating.

I am sure there has been some corrupt people in my denomination(PCA), but not with the denomination... When the theology of a denomination become corrupt the denomination is corrupt.

That's call "bigotry"-- your denomination "has some corrupt people" but the CC is "corrupt". And you say that with very little knowledge of the history of Christianity as you make preposterous statement after another. I hook you up with links to show you're wrong, but then you virtually ignore them.

Surely you know the Protestant canon is not the same as the Catholic canon.

Surely you know that many of the Protestant Bibles are the same because they include the Apocrypha, such as Luther's original Bible in German.

The CC also did not exist at that time. But there were writings that were passed from church to church, although probably limited in circulation.

You don't know what you're talking about, and even the Wiki article on Christianity would clearly show the ignorance in your statement on this. Again: Christianity - Wikipedia Now, why don't you reading it this time instead of spewing nonsense.

Your continued use of bigoted statements, your continued use of stereotyping others, and your continued refusal to look look at links provided, which not only you ignore on these threads but on others, makes have any serious discussion with almost impossible. After reading a post like yours above, I'm so happy to have left that "conservative" Protestant church I grew up in after realizing I was being sold "snake-oil"-- as you have bought hook, line, and sinker.

 

[metis]

You seem to be willing to accept explanation #1. To me, explanation #2 seems far more likely to be true.

When the Orthodox Church split off from the Catholic Church, both the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople ex-communicated each other, basically stating that each other's salvation was in jeopardy, but they fell short of saying that the other was going to hell.

Because of this, matched with Origen's statement roughly eight centuries earlier that said much the same, I'm sticking with curtain number 1.

Behind curtain number one is a trip to hell for me, and behind curtain number two is a trip to purgatory for you, so I guess maybe you win.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But then along come Pope Francis who definitely is on a different page than what's found in the Catechism, so maybe there's a chance for me yet.

Where do you think Francis disagrees with the Catechism?

I'm talking about opinions he's actually expressed, as opposed to how he's portrayed in the media.

 

[metis]

You are wrong on both counts. Different doesn't mean radical. Jeswus did not enc all of the 6:13. He kept the moral lalw as part of Christianity.

Here are a link to the 613 Laws, and all of these Laws are "moral laws" because they direct us on what we must do if one's Jewish: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

If you get your theology from wikipedia, not wonder so much of it is in error.

Actually if you knew much of anything about Christian theology you would well know that at least most of their information is correct, which is also why they connect the reader with links. But of course you won't look those links up either because you know it all.

 

[metis]

Where do you think Francis disagrees with the Catechism?

I gotta leave, but he has made it clear that he views the issue of who may possibly be saved to be broader than what the Catechism says, and he's showing this with both the groups he's talking with and what he has said about respecting their beliefs.

I didn't have a chance to read this, but maybe this link may answer your question: Theology of Pope Francis - Wikipedia

I'll be back tomorrow, so have patience.

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

A traditionalist is a person who supports the established customs and beliefs of his or her society or group, and does not want to change them. For example. within the Catholic Church, a group of traditionalists wants a return to positions as they were before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). One of those positions was that Heaven was reserved for Catholics only.

As I see it, the idea of belonging to an elite group favored by God made a strong appeal to the arrogant side of human nature. And so, I suspect these Catholic traditionalists of being highly infected with arrogance.

Alternatively, you could view it as that they actually believe in their religion, as opposed to changing anything they dislike in an attempt to comfort themselves. I find the latter more distasteful.

But now, Pope Francis, a good and humble man, has said that even atheists might get to Heaven with good works. Wow, imagine that! The traditionalists must have had strokes when they heard that.

I don't know the doctrinal arguments involved, but I would imagine that the traditionalists probably have it right. In which case, yes, they'd be quite justified in being pissed off at their leader for trampling all over their actual faith in the name of soothing the feelings of people who can't even be bothered to go to church.

But let's suppose that Pope Francis's position will lead not just Catholics but all Christians into a new era of harmony with their brothers and sisters of all beliefs. What happens to the requirements for Salvation? Why would anyone need the Catholic church or any other Christian faith?

That is a good question. Makes you think that maybe Pope Francis's position is, in fact, wrong.

Well, it sounds like the Church will maintain that it is still our best hope for entry to Heaven based on good works because it gives great moral guidance. Now, this is an interesting claim because it wasn't that long ago that Pope John Paul II made over one hundred public apologies during his reign. He asked forgiveness for the sins of his predecessors (including for the sinful Crusades).

Yeah, that was pretty lame too. I would never apologize for the Crusades. Except for the Fourth, for obvious reasons.

Bottom Line: The Catholic Church, like Christianity on the whole, is doing what it can to adapt and survive in a changing, more sophisticated, social environment. But if the idea of Heaven as a country club reserved for Christians isn't going to be received as credible anymore then they can't turn back. And if their claims to high-grade moral guidance can't be backed with evidence, what's left? What will they have to offer in order to move forward and survive?

Please post your comments.

They can offer the world and the religion will still die out, because people don't respect, don't live for, weak faiths that pander to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Glaurung]

This reminds me of one of my Catholic neighbors years ago getting so upset with the switch from Latin to English at mass so that she stopped going for a while. The point I would have liked to have made to her is that Jesus taught about faith, compassion, and justice being foremost, not about whether the mass should be in Latin, English, or Swahili.

It's not simply about the language; had all they done was to allow (whilst also keeping Latin as an option) for the use of the vernacular then there would be very little complaint from me. The liturgy used in the Personal Ordinariate is itself in Early Modern English. (Although we use Latin for the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei). The point is that Liturgy is important; lex orandi, lex credendi as they say and by banalising the liturgy they've banalised the faith. The atmosphere of any Catholic liturgy should be palpable in reverence.

It would be like stripping Judaism of its Hebrew, and setting the now vernacular Tanakh cantillations to "folk" music.

Jesus' main teachings deal with faith, love for all, and justice/fairness, and you're worried about the music?

Jesus also established a Church and that Church has traditions which include the use of music. To reduce Christianity to nothing more than a sentiment of universal love is to starve the faith of most of its substance. Without the liturgy I would not have will to commit myself to the moral demands Christianity makes. (As Jesus also taught the severe eternal consequences of sin). Tradition is just as important for high church Christianity as it is for the more conservative variants of Judaism. My faith isn't just a sentiment, it's a practice as well.

The outrage, is the fact that a faction within the Church has been able to implement a watered down (albeit valid) parody of that practice and impose it near universally for decades. It's only recently that the older liturgy has become somewhat available for the typical Catholic. Iconoclasm has always been a persistent impulse throughout history.

 

[omega2xx]

Yeah you missed my point mate, I'm not saying you have no business commenting on our discussion, just that Brick's concept of "God" is almost certainly different from yours, people call themselves Christian and say they believe in "God" but can have quite different concepts about what that deity actually is e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seven Day Adventists, Moonies, Quakers, and Presbyterians all call themselves Christian but all have different "God" concepts. It is erroneous to talk about the Christian god as though it is universally understood to mean one thing only, because it isn't.

You are part right. God does not mean the same thing to everyone. It is universally right for us to get our conception from the only reliable source available, the Bible.

[/QUOTE] Sure, but not necessarily the same god.[/QUOTE]

There is only one God and only 1 way to find out about Him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I gotta leave, but he has made it clear that he views the issue of who may possibly be saved to be broader than what the Catechism says, and he's showing this with both the groups he's talking with and what he has said about respecting their beliefs.

I didn't have a chance to read this, but maybe this link may answer your question: Theology of Pope Francis - Wikipedia

I'll be back tomorrow, so have patience.

I looked through that. I still didn't see anywhere where Francis disagreed with the Catechism.

I see places where he emphasizes parts of the Catechism that his predecessors might not have emphasized as much (though they still upheld them as part of Catholic teaching). I can see where he's tried to put aspects of the Catechism in a larger context (e.g. instead of just "do A, B, and C because God wills it", it's "do A, B, and C because these are acts of love and we are commanded to love by God.")

OTOH, what I've never seen is Francis saying that some part of the Catechism is wrong. Lots of "I'd like you to focus on this aspect of the Catechism that we may not have emphasized enough in the past" but that's not the same thing, and it still upholds the same Catechism his predecessors upheld.

 

[omega2xx]

Again, it is not ever remotely logical that an institution, like the CC or your denomination, can be "corrupt", and your continued use of stereotyping is nauseating.

That's call "bigotry"-- your denomination "has some corrupt people" but the CC is "corrupt". And you say that with very little knowledge of the history of Christianity as you make preposterous statement after another. I hook you up with links to show you're wrong, but then you virtually ignore them.

You make such foolish statements because you don't understand the concept. When a denomination makes up unBiblical doctrines they have become corrupt. The selling of indulgences is only one example. The inquisitions are another. When they appoint sinful, errant as the head of God church, they are corrupt. There are many more examples but you will not believed them. Even the one they consider their first pope warnd us of such men---2 Pet 2:1-3

Surely you know that many of the Protestant Bibles are the same because they include the Apocrypha, such as Luther's original Bible in German.

Some do because some people want them. Surely you know the apocrypha is not accept as Scripture in Protestant denomination. The orthodox churches may. I am not sure.

You don't know what you're talking about, and even the Wiki article on Christianity would clearly show the ignorance in your statement on this. Again: Christianity - Wikipedia Now, why don't you reading it this time instead of spewing nonsense.

Secular writings are usually ignorant of Christianity, especially conservative theology. My goal is to understand the Bible, not church history, some of which is embellished.

Your continued use of bigoted statements, your continued use of stereotyping others, and your continued refusal to look look at links provided, which not only you ignore on these threads but on others, makes have any serious discussion with almost impossible. After reading a post like yours above, I'm so happy to have left that "conservative" Protestant church I grew up in after realizing I was being sold "snake-oil"-- as you have bought hook, line, and sinker.

I am not concerned about the OPINIONS of any one with a liberal theology. Since you are ignorant of the Bible, you don't know if you were being sold snake oil. Your statements about them is bigoted and stereotyped. If you accept Catholic theology, it is you who has been sold snake oil and have bought it hook, line and sinker.

Again, it is not ever remotely logical that an institution, like the CC or your denomination, can be "corrupt", and your continued use of stereotyping is nauseating.

That's call "bigotry"-- your denomination "has some corrupt people" but the CC is "corrupt". And you say that with very little knowledge of the history of Christianity as you make preposterous statement after another. I hook you up with links to show you're wrong, but then you virtually ignore them.

I have explained what a corrupt church is but you will only accept you version. How sad. I don't virtually ignore your links, I actually ignore them. If you think they contradict me, cut a paste your example and I will show you where they are wrong.

Surely you know that many of the Protestant Bibles are the same because they include the Apocrypha, such as Luther's original Bible in German.

Surely you know Protestant denominations, except possibly the Orthodox churches, do not accept the apocrypha as Scripture inspired by God.

You don't know what you're talking about, and even the Wiki article on Christianity would clearly show the ignorance in your statement on this. Again: Christianity - Wikipedia Now, why don't you reading it this time instead of spewing nonsense.

You are not qualified to know if what I say is nonsense.