|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Nature and Authority of Holy Tradition
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
As requested, I've started this thread to prevent us from going too far off topic on two of the Dead Horses threads.
Some feedback is badly needed from Roman Catholics and Orthodox (more knowledgable than I!) but, of course, the subject is open to all.
Help me out, yeah?
[ 02. June 2012, 17:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
Sod authority and "Holy" tradition - what about natural justice?
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Sod authority and "Holy" tradition - what about natural justice?
No-one ever said natural justice didn't have it's place within Holy Tradition.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Sod authority and "Holy" tradition - what about natural justice?
No-one ever said natural justice didn't have it's place within Holy Tradition.
No they never say it. Just act like it's not even applicable.
AtB, Pyx_e.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'm afraid I wasn't part of the conversation that spawned this thread. Can you provide some more context, please? I don't really know what the question is that you're asking. Thanks!
Of course! The threads were:
- ...an attempt to redefine marriage [civil partnerships]
- Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
Please read from the latest posts on the respective threads to get an idea of how the topics digressed from their intended purpose.
The burning question concerns the Ordination of Women, and a quote from Pope JP II:
quote:
from Pope JP II, Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
"..in order that all doubt may be removed in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. May 22, 1994."
We were also discussing (in our usual somewhat heated fashion) precisely what "Holy Tradition" meant, since many quickly dismiss it as superstition without even bothering to find out what it is. More on this in the above threads.
The other topic, regarding Gay Marriage, well we haven't actually got very far with linking this in with Holy Tradition... yet... so some input is needed here too!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
We also need to debate the significance and legitimacy of 'Holy Tradition'. That appears to vary from one denomination to another and even within some. That's probably why the topic is in DH.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Sod authority and "Holy" tradition - what about natural justice?
No-one ever said natural justice didn't have it's place within Holy Tradition.
No they never say it. Just act like it's not even applicable.
AtB, Pyx_e.
Actually these statements are quite useful, because they define the dividing line between christians (of all denominations) all over the world.
One side believes in the importance of adherence to Revealed Wisdom (eg from God), the other has degenerated into the Gospel being purely about Human Rights and Social Justice.
The latter people, I suppose, cannot be expected to take Holy Tradition seriously and confine themselves to a squinted-eye interpretation of the Bible alone.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...and confine themselves to a squinted-eye interpretation of the Bible alone.
Just an addendum:
Holy Tradition also tells us how we should interpret the Bible. Can mere laymen of various denominations be trusted to interpret for themselves? Well, with what's been going on in the churches for the last 50 years (and long before that) I know what I think!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
I'm a mere layman believing in mere Christianity!
(Just occasionally I am tempted by the advantages of Orthodoxy over Anglicanism, but then I read some of the posts by converts to Orthodoxy and Irealise I like my current green grass.)
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Mark, I suspect you may have trouble with this, because you seem to have a rather alarming style based on a combination of "new convert enthusiasm" (c.f. "there's nothing so irritating as an ex-smoker") and "I have the One True Way" coupled with a 'debating' style that often boils down to "Well, there's my way, or there's the blinkered, stupid, moronic and plainly wrong way that only wankers like you lot would stick to." None of which lends itself to a constructive discussion ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
However ... if you want to have this debate I think where it would be helpful to start from is your understanding of what Holy Tradition is, and why it should be accorded the status you wish to accord it, rather than an alternative status. It would also be useful to look at Holy Tradition in the context of Western Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic settings (and any others where it has a 'high' status) as well as in the wide range of Protestant understandings, some of which ISTM have a Tradition-lite approach, and some a Tradition-Schmadition approach.
You need to start there, rather than with direct reference to OOW or homosexuality (not least because I reckon bringing either of those to bear will send us straight back to the zombie stables).
All IMHO, naturally, but I could see that being an interesting and potentially fruitful discussion given the membership, although possibly not fruitful in the sense you'd like, of the rest of us coming to understand that Mark Is Right ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I'm a mere layman believing in mere Christianity!
(Just occasionally I am tempted by the advantages of Orthodoxy over Anglicanism, but then I read some of the posts by converts to Orthodoxy and I realise I like my current green grass.)
..But it doesn't necessarily mean that the grass might not only look, but actually BE greener on the other side of the fence!
btw. I've read "Mere Christianity" by C S Lewis - it does have some good stuff in it!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One side believes in the importance of adherence to Revealed Wisdom (eg from God), the other has degenerated into the Gospel being purely about Human Rights and Social Justice.
The latter people, I suppose, cannot be expected to take Holy Tradition seriously and confine themselves to a squinted-eye interpretation of the Bible alone.
While the former cannot be expected to actually care about other human beings, so long as there's dead dogmas and pre-medieval traditions to be upheld. And know this - when your religious doctrines become more important than the health and wellbeing of real people, you're doing it wrong.
I'll tell you what "Holy Tradition" is - it's the last refuge of those who abhor progress. When all their other arguments against it have failed, they fall back on good old fashioned "this is the way it's always been". It's bullshit. Always was and always will be ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Can mere laymen of various denominations be trusted to interpret for themselves?
Yes. Even - and I really mean this - even if they don't get it right, it's a better state of affairs than having a self-perpetuating heirarchy controlling what everyone else believes.
[ 02. June 2012, 09:39: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
One side believes in the importance of adherence to Revealed Wisdom (eg from God), the other has degenerated into the Gospel being purely about Human Rights and Social Justice.
And this is why I'm still contemplating that Hell call with your name on it.
You have to stop being dismissive about other people's traditions - ones you shared not so long ago - in order to be able to debate this matter seriously. You, of course, have timeless and unchanging Revealed Wisdom (note the capitals) while the rest of us have a degenerate social gospel that panders to the spirit of the age.
Such an attitude tells me what contempt you already hold my denomination in, and how little you think you need to listen. In return, that's forming my opinion about your denomination, which was quite respectable...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Mark, I suspect you may have trouble with this, because you seem to have a rather alarming style based on a combination of "new convert enthusiasm" (c.f. "there's nothing so irritating as an ex-smoker") and "I have the One True Way" coupled with a 'debating' style that often boils down to "Well, there's my way, or there's the blinkered, stupid, moronic and plainly wrong way that only wankers like you lot would stick to." None of which lends itself to a constructive discussion
Please remember these are your words, not mine - I've no intention of taking ownership of them.
quote:
However ... if you want to have this debate I think where it would be helpful to start from is your understanding of what Holy Tradition is, and why it should be accorded the status you wish to accord it, rather than an alternative status. It would also be useful to look at Holy Tradition in the context of Western Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic settings (and any others where it has a 'high' status) as well as in the wide range of Protestant understandings, some of which ISTM have a Tradition-lite approach, and some a Tradition-Schmadition approach.
All this is intended to be a part of this debate. That is why I don't want this thread to be dominated by liberal protestants, but have input from traditionalist protestants, RCs as well as Orthodox.
quote:
You need to start there, rather than with direct reference to OOW or homosexuality (not least because I reckon bringing either of those to bear will send us straight back to the zombie stables).
Sorry, but I beg to differ here - there is a point to this thread, and it is explained at the begiinning.
quote:
All IMHO, naturally, but I could see that being an interesting and potentially fruitful discussion given the membership, although possibly not fruitful in the sense you'd like, of the rest of us coming to understand that Mark Is Right
Of course not! debates should never be directed towards a pre-ordained, intended outcome.. unless we're talking about the BBC!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
The temptation is of course to polarise into black and white, the truth is much more subtle. The temptation also is to debate with someone whose clearly defines themselves in one colour. If the Ship has proved nothing else to me it is the futility of arguing with fundies.
I fully accept both extremes have something to say and both extremes can be immensely damaging. I cannot berate your position as unkind, the refuge of the small minded and provably wrong if I am not prepared to berate the liberal position for is unwillingness to define that which is Holy, its seeming comfortableness with a promiscuous unfaithfulness to God and to each other and its seeming lack on impact on one’s life.
But as I said both positions are in the end paper tigers and I am unwilling to fight or defend such sillyness.
Suffice to say (as always) no one is a biblical literalist. And it strikes me that neither was Jesus (untie ass, pick wheat, Sabbath made for man ..........)
AtB, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If the Ship has proved nothing else to me it is the futility of arguing with fundies.
It would be helpful, of course, if you could define precisely who the "fundies" are...
Does faithfulness to Holy Tradition really amount to extremism, towards one becoming uncharitable and lacking love towards one's neighbour?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If the Ship has proved nothing else to me it is the futility of arguing with fundies.
It would be helpful, of course, if you could define precisely who the "fundies" are...
Does faithfulness to Holy Tradition really amount to extremism, towards one becoming uncharitable and lacking love towards one's neighbour?
Ah, wait, I'm beginning to understand now... Of course, silly me! Refusal to accept women who want to become Priests, and gay marriages in church, IS the said extremism, lack of charity and utter absence of love!
Now it all makes sense... things like comforting the berieved, working to help the poor, generosity to charities, feeding the hungry, clothing for those who have little... these are of secondary importance when it comes to the politically correct raison d'être of liberalism, which must always take precedence, and is the very definition of charity and love!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If the Ship has proved nothing else to me it is the futility of arguing with fundies.
It would be helpful, of course, if you could define precisely who the "fundies" are...
Does faithfulness to Holy Tradition really amount to extremism, towards one becoming uncharitable and lacking love towards one's neighbour?
Ah, wait, I'm beginning to understand now... Of course, silly me! Refusal to accept women who want to become Priests, and gay marriages in church, IS the said extremism, lack of charity and utter absence of love!
Now it all makes sense... things like comforting the berieved, working to help the poor, generosity to charities, feeding the hungry, clothing for those who have little... these are of secondary importance when it comes to the politically correct raison d'être of liberalism, which must always take precedence, and is the very definition of charity and love!
It's comments like this that make having a meaningful discussion with you impossible. I'd suggest not framing everything in an "us vs. them" style and suggesting what you believe is truth, while those with dissenting opinions are perversions of the true faith. The snide sarcasm really doesn't help.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It's comments like this that make having a meaningful discussion with you impossible. I'd suggest not framing everything in an "us vs. them" style and suggesting what you believe is truth, while those with dissenting opinions are perversions of the true faith. The snide sarcasm really doesn't help.
OK, let me ask you straight. Let's say the things which most obviously divide the Church, are gay marriage and women priests/bishops. Are these things really more important, or even as important, as common charity and love for one's neighbour?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I'm still not quite sure what precisely is supposed to be under discussion here, in particular if we are to keep it out of Dead Horse territory.
The Church is the body of Christ, not its Head. So she does not have the authority, or for that matter the Divine power, to simply institute sacraments as she sees fit. She can ultimately only work with what Jesus has given to her.
Furthermore, the Church operates primarily on faith, not on knowledge. Nobody knows how sacraments work in a "scientific" or "engineering" sense. Our insight into Divine matters is primarily declarative by faith ("if this, then that, so I believe") not analytical ("this will by such mechanism and causality lead to that"). Of course there is theological analysis, but it operates by deduction from faith as first principles, rather than by explaining faith from other first principles. Given this, we need tradition to tell us about faith at least at the fundamental level. We cannot compute or reason core Divine truth, it must be handed on to us.
Looking at the ordination of women, the problem is that the Church does not have the authority to extend a sacrament on her own. An argument can be made that the sacrament which exists is meant to include women anyhow. Yet the validity of such ordinations cannot be deduced beyond reasonable doubt from the faith that has been handed down to us. Since the priesthood is essential for the functioning of the Church, she cannot risk getting this one wrong. Therefore, it is not possible to extend ordination to women. That's the RC logic there.
Gay marriage is a somewhat different case. There the faith that has been handed down to us is totally clear what a (sacramental) marriage is, at least as far as its participants are concerned: marriage is between one man and one woman. Since the Church cannot make new sacraments on her own authority, there is nothing further to be discussed there. (Clearly there is plenty to be discussed on how the Church should deal with gay relationships. But the issue of "gay marriage" as such just doesn't feature.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Thankyou very much for this IngoB. This is exactly what I wanted the thread to be about. Others, of course, will disagree...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church is the body of Christ, not its Head. So she does not have the authority, or for that matter the Divine power, to simply institute sacraments as she sees fit. She can ultimately only work with what Jesus has given to her.
So from whence came the "sacraments" of marriage, last rites, ordination, etc.? The only ones explicity instituted by Christ are communion and baptism (and, arguably, foot-washing).
[ 02. June 2012, 12:47: Message edited by: Steve H ]
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If the Ship has proved nothing else to me it is the futility of arguing with fundies.
It would be helpful, of course, if you could define precisely who the "fundies" are...
Does faithfulness to Holy Tradition really amount to extremism, towards one becoming uncharitable and lacking love towards one's neighbour?
Ah, wait, I'm beginning to understand now... Of course, silly me! Refusal to accept women who want to become Priests, and gay marriages in church, IS the said extremism, lack of charity and utter absence of love!
Now it all makes sense... things like comforting the berieved, working to help the poor, generosity to charities, feeding the hungry, clothing for those who have little... these are of secondary importance when it comes to the politically correct raison d'être of liberalism, which must always take precedence, and is the very definition of charity and love!
In an attempt to get this back on track (which is a vain hope)...
Fundies come in all colors, sizes, stripes, etc. You can be a severe conservative, liberal, vegan, cattle rancher, whatever.
The problem is that if you are invested in one pole with no serious investment in listening to the other, you are really in an echo chamber.
Some of my very conservative friends believe honestly and in good faith that their positions do reflect love and charity. And from their position, it does make sense. However, from a liberal standpoint, well, it doesn't.
I was raised around Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, so the idea of Authority being in a person or group (made centuries ago) is a little nonsensical to me.
We have all been given the Holy Spirit at our baptism. We all are part of the family of God. We can read Holy Scripture and pray and listen to the Lord. Are all of us called to the same things? No, as we all can't be hands or we aren't going anywhere. (I mean somebody has to be the guts and they aren't pretty.)
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Fundies come in all colors, sizes, stripes, etc. You can be a severe conservative, liberal, vegan, cattle rancher, whatever.
Nope. We liberals have plenty of faults, but one we are immune to is fundamentalism, which is pretty much the opposite of liberalism. Someone with a fundy attitude may call themself a liberal, but it doesn't make them one.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It's comments like this that make having a meaningful discussion with you impossible. I'd suggest not framing everything in an "us vs. them" style and suggesting what you believe is truth, while those with dissenting opinions are perversions of the true faith. The snide sarcasm really doesn't help.
OK, let me ask you straight. Let's say the things which most obviously divide the Church, are gay marriage and women priests/bishops. Are these things really more important, or even as important, as common charity and love for one's neighbour?
No one has said they are more important. This isn't the zero sum game you seem to think it is, not an either or. As to division in the church that has been there since apostle's time and will exist until Jesus returns. Blood has been spilled over those divisions as each side considers themselves to be the arbiters of authority and Holy Tradition. I'm just curious why you seem to think it's an either/or proposition.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Allow me to summarise the conversation which strayed from dead horse territory, from my pov:
It's my belief that God calls people today into service, and guides us by way of the teaching and example of Christ Jesus, and by way of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
I think that the community of believers are to co-operate in service, that every calling must be discerned by those called into that specific service within the Church, and that nobody should stand in the way if God calls someone - even a female - into the priesthood.
If something called 'Holy Tradition' is used as a stumbling-block to God's will, so that eg a woman will always be refused acceptance into the priesthood as no woman has ever been accepted into it before, it is clearly being given higher authority than God's will.
We have evidence from the New Testament that from the beginning there were differences of opinion within the Christian Church. Paul said to pray about it if people disagreed with him, and God would make it clear to them. Surely that's what we still need to do.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
In an attempt to get this back on track (which is a vain hope)...
Fundies come in all colors, sizes, stripes, etc. You can be a severe conservative, liberal, vegan, cattle rancher, whatever.
The problem is that if you are invested in one pole with no serious investment in listening to the other, you are really in an echo chamber.
Some of my very conservative friends believe honestly and in good faith that their positions do reflect love and charity. And from their position, it does make sense. However, from a liberal standpoint, well, it doesn't.
I was raised around Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, so the idea of Authority being in a person or group (made centuries ago) is a little nonsensical to me.
We have all been given the Holy Spirit at our baptism. We all are part of the family of God. We can read Holy Scripture and pray and listen to the Lord. Are all of us called to the same things? No, as we all can't be hands or we aren't going anywhere. (I mean somebody has to be the guts and they aren't pretty.)
Thanks for that. All your points (including "fundies") seem to be limited to all the diverse shades under the "umbrella" of protestantism.
The subject was intended to be about Holy Tradition, and what it has to say about gay marriage and the OoW.
The Holy Bible came out of Holy Tradition, so of course it isn't off limits to quote it. This means that protestants do have a valid viewpoint, but this shouldn't be taken to represent the whole Church of God, excluding RCs and Orthodox.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK, let me ask you straight. Let's say the things which most obviously divide the Church, are gay marriage and women priests/bishops. Are these things really more important, or even as important, as common charity and love for one's neighbour?
No one has said they are more important. This isn't the zero sum game you seem to think it is, not an either or. As to division in the church that has been there since apostle's time and will exist until Jesus returns. Blood has been spilled over those divisions as each side considers themselves to be the arbiters of authority and Holy Tradition. I'm just curious why you seem to think it's an either/or proposition.
OK, we know there has always been division in the Church of God - sadly, this is human nature. But why have so many people wasted so much time trying to push and force these two issues, and impose them on everyone, when they are less important than common charity? Can you not see that all these wasted years could have been better spent in building up the Church, and good works of charity. Instead, we have been caught up in these two things, to the detriment of everything else, and just created even more division.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
This means that protestants do have a valid viewpoint, but this shouldn't be taken to represent the whole Church of God, excluding RCs and Orthodox.
As a liberal protestant, I wouldn't dream of excluding Catholics and Orthodox, but I'm not wild about being excluded by them, as frequently happens on various Christian forums.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If the Ship has proved nothing else to me it is the futility of arguing with fundies.
It would be helpful, of course, if you could define precisely who the "fundies" are...
Just for you
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
This means that protestants do have a valid viewpoint, but this shouldn't be taken to represent the whole Church of God, excluding RCs and Orthodox.
As a liberal protestant, I wouldn't dream of excluding Catholics and Orthodox, but I'm not wild about being excluded by them, as frequently happens on various Christian forums.
I am quite sure that there is no chance whatsoever of you being excluded from this forum! It is true that RCs and Orthodox have a different view of the Church than do protestants, but (dare I say it) this is how it's always been!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK, we know there has always been division in the Church of God - sadly, this is human nature. But why have so many people wasted so much time trying to push and force these two issues, and impose them on everyone, when they are less important than common charity? Can you not see that all these wasted years could have been better spent in building up the Church, and good works of charity. Instead, we have been caught up in these two things, to the detriment of everything else, and just created even more division.
I doubt we'd have spent years building up common charity - we didn't do it before these 2 items became a bone of contention and there have been/would have been other doctrinal issues that took up the slack. We humans love to revel in "us vs. them" games. Politicians recognize this and they use it to their advantage and sadly this has been used throughout church history as well. Perhaps if we spent more time obeying the 2 commandments Jesus stated were the sum of the law and the prophets and less time trying to prove the "other guy" is on the wrong side of theology the rest would take care of itself.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Shipmates will know that I tend to have a fairly 'high' view of tradition (or Tradition) than is common among people of my particular church background.
But when issues get polarised (as they are here on this thread) then it makes me want to run a mile in the opposite direction...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
As requested, I've started this thread to prevent us from going too far off topic on two of the Dead Horses threads.
Some feedback is badly needed from Roman Catholics and Orthodox (more knowledgable than I!) but, of course, the subject is open to all.
Help me out, yeah?
I don't understand the question.
Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox are Authoritative?
One wonders why they split then.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Shipmates will know that I tend to have a fairly 'high' view of tradition (or Tradition) than is common among people of my particular church background.
But when issues get polarised (as they are here on this thread) then it makes me want to run a mile in the opposite direction...
Yes, "polarised" has become something of a soundbite recently. Jesus said "who is not for me is against me." Is anyone who wants to be for Christ "polarised"?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, you've polarised it if you're suggesting that other people aren't 'for' Christ as much as you apparently believe that you are.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, you've polarised it if you're suggesting that other people aren't 'for' Christ as much as you apparently believe that you are.
But I wasn't... However, these two issues can only either be right or wrong - where's the "middle ground"?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And don't forget the incident in Luke chapter 9 where Christ asked the disciples NOT to stop the guy who was going around casting out demons in his name etc. - 'he who is not against us is for us.'
It cuts both ways, Mark.
For the record, I have a lot of time for the Orthodox Church and their view of Tradition. Same for the RCs, but I tend to think they embed it within the Papacy too much ...
The thing I don't like about it, though, is when they use it as a stick to beat the rest of us with.
If you want to flagellate anyone with the stick of Tradition, flagellate yourselves first. Goodness knows, you've got a lot to do to put your own house in order. As we have with ours.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Why pick on these two issues? Why isolate them from all sorts of other issues?
If it wasn't these issues, I'd suggest that you'd find other issues to make a big deal of.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...But why have so many people wasted so much time trying to push and force these two issues, and impose them on everyone, when they are less important than common charity? Can you not see that all these wasted years could have been better spent in building up the Church, and good works of charity. Instead, we have been caught up in these two things, to the detriment of everything else, and just created even more division.
Because these two issues are considered to be more important than almost anything, because they, in common with a few other issues, are held to be moral absolutes, which May Not Be Questioned. Never mind that not so long ago (say back in the 1960's and 1970's) if you wanted to argue against, for example, racial discrimination, or argue for the admission of women to Oxbridge colleges, you had to be ready to provide a reasoned and coherent argument as to why it might be beneficial to adopt such a policy. Now all you have to do is put on a grand show of moral indignation and scream 'racist' or 'misogynist', and portray your opponent as evil and sub-human.
No, the fact is they aren't moral absolutes; they are issues which society has carefully considered and come to a judgement over, that it preferable not to discriminate on the grounds of skin colour, or, in most cases, on the grounds of gender, not because people who did so (of my parents' generation, for example) were evil and wicked, but because we have collectively changed our minds.
The problem with these modern so-called 'liberals' is they just hate the idea of people thinking for themselves and making their own minds up about social policy - far easier to adopt some sort of 'progressive' agenda, and to claim to be following 'natural justice' - and this sort of attitude, IMO, is far more damaging than any of the evils (real or supposed) that they are trying to right.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Okay. I have a general idea of what Holy Tradition is. Surely it's more than "this is the Holy Way we've always done it". As I understand the Orthodox view, it's ideas and standards that have been sifted through the discernment of acknowledged holy men (haven't heard of any women known to be Orthodox "Doctors of the Church") and come to be standards of the Orthodox Church. Is this right?
In a perhaps futile effort to keep this discussion from being kicked back to Dead Horses, could you help us folks outside the Ancient Churches by giving us a play by play on how a feature of Holy Tradition gets enshrined in custom? How about the icon controversy way back? That was a hairy ordeal with people getting exiled and excommunicated until it was ironed out. Could you, Mark, explain as an example of Holy Tradition how veneration of icons became imbedded in Orthodox worship? (I'm not criticizing the custom- I'm thinking it is a good example of the establishment of a Holy Tradition.) This might clarify what exactly we mean by Holy Tradition and give us something more toothsome to discuss than all this tit-for-tat stuff that has been thrown around so far.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church is the body of Christ, not its Head. So she does not have the authority, or for that matter the Divine power, to simply institute sacraments as she sees fit. She can ultimately only work with what Jesus has given to her.
So from whence came the "sacraments" of marriage, last rites, ordination, etc.? The only ones explicity instituted by Christ are communion and baptism (and, arguably, foot-washing).
I've also found it rather puzzling that, according to some interpretations of scripture and tradition, we have to assume the Body cannot be informed and led by the Head - and animated by the Spirit into new works and appropriately contextual ministry for the sake of the Gospel, as centuries roll on.
I appreciate there is always a risk of the body 'turning' the Head which Paul warns us about. But equally the risk on the other side of the equation is that in stifling the leading of the Head, a Body becomes dead from the neck down, or at least paralyzed in vital parts.
This strange dislocation doesn't seem, to me, to be terribly healthy or productive.
quote:
Mark Betts posted: Now it all makes sense... things like comforting the berieved, working to help the poor, generosity to charities, feeding the hungry, clothing for those who have little... these are of secondary importance when it comes to the politically correct raison d'être of liberalism, which must always take precedence, and is the very definition of charity and love!
I find this rather disingenuous. After all, it is only from the side of the anti-OOW argument that the issue of the sex of the one doing at least some of these things - if referring to ordained ministry - comes into play as THE primary matter.
Personally, I've never felt that THE most important thing about me is the fact I'm a woman - though it is very important, of course, nevertheless. I've always thought that the most important thing about any human being is that they try to accomplish, with Christ, the building of God's kingdom. However it is only when I began to take that to its - to me - natural and logical conclusion, did I hear that in fact, what was primarily of the first importance to traditionalists, was my sex. The work of Christ did not, arguably, seem to figure quite so highly at that point?
However, I do realize that for some Church traditions one of the battles for the kingdom is keeping it free from the likes of me! That it is not, so much, the message that must be preserved 'unalloyed', but their interpretation of how that message must be given, or that gospel mediated.
So I'm afraid I can't see that the traditionalists within the Church can make any superior claim to putting 'good works' or the gospel first. Not when context is at least as important as the message.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
things like comforting the berieved, working to help the poor, generosity to charities, feeding the hungry, clothing for those who have little... these are of secondary importance when it comes to the politically correct raison d'être of liberalism, which must always take precedence, and is the very definition of charity and love!
The liberal Gospel is about Human Rights and Social Justice, is it not?
Is comforting the bereaved a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is working to help the poor a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is generosity to charities a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is feeding the hungry a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is clothing for those who have little a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
It is the anti-liberals who declare that their so-called Holy Tradition must always take precedence over all of the above. By dismissing all of the above as Human Rights and Social Justice anti-liberals show that they are anti-Gospel. Their Holy Tradition falsely so-called that they say must always take precedence is a matter of tithing mint and rue and herbs of all kinds. What the anti-liberals call Jesus is not the living God but merely a kitsch plaster statue.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Fundies come in all colors, sizes, stripes, etc. You can be a severe conservative, liberal, vegan, cattle rancher, whatever.
Nope. We liberals have plenty of faults, but one we are immune to is fundamentalism, which is pretty much the opposite of liberalism. Someone with a fundy attitude may call themself a liberal, but it doesn't make them one.
Liberals aren't immune from fundamentalism as defined on this thread.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The liberal Gospel is about Human Rights and Social Justice, is it not?
Is comforting the bereaved a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is working to help the poor a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is generosity to charities a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is feeding the hungry a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
Is clothing for those who have little a matter of Human Rights and Social Justice? Yes.
It is the anti-liberals who declare that their so-called Holy Tradition must always take precedence over all of the above. By dismissing all of the above as Human Rights and Social Justice anti-liberals show that they are anti-Gospel. Their Holy Tradition falsely so-called that they say must always take precedence is a matter of tithing mint and rue and herbs of all kinds. What the anti-liberals call Jesus is not the living God but merely a kitsch plaster statue.
I notice that you only refer to God at all when you try to accuse your opponents (who do believe in God) of being less righteous and charitable than your bunch. I don't need to say anything else...
[ 02. June 2012, 15:12: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, you've polarised it if you're suggesting that other people aren't 'for' Christ as much as you apparently believe that you are.
But I wasn't... However, these two issues can only either be right or wrong - where's the "middle ground"?
Hi, Mark. I haven't been on the Ship lately as I have been in past times. I'm another Orthodox Christian, and a convert -- although I joined the Church over 20 years ago, and you seem to be somewhat newer.
If you'll forgive me for being a bit of a babushka here, it is rarely helpful to discuss basic principles, such as "What is Holy Tradition" in the context of hot-button issues. The hot-button issues generate so much heat that the basic principles get lost. You need to pick some issue that are slightly boring to use as your example to work out what Holy Tradition is, and how it applies. Once you've got a firm grip on what it is, then you can, with humility and charity, try to apply it to the hot-button issues.
Humility means acknowledging that you might in fact get things wrong. Even if Holy Tradition is never wrong -- Holy Tradition being the wisdom that the Holy Spirit has granted to the Church -- that doesn't mean that YOU will understand Holy Tradition correctly. You can be wrong.
Charity means that you treat the people you're arguing with like they are intelligent, well-meaning, Christ-loving people. It means that you treat them as if they are icons of the Most High God -- because they are. If they are at the Liturgy, when the deacon censes the icons he will cense them, acknowledging them as living icons. Disparaging them is a dangerous thing to do. So listen, and attempt to understand their point of view. Acknowledge that you might be able to learn something of God from them, because they bear his image.
If you can't do that, go to your icon corner and pray for them for a while. Ask God to have mercy on them, and bless them. Ask God to show you how you can love them as he loves them.
As you've said, the most important things are not gay marriage and the ordination of women. The most important things are feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, that sort of thing. So ask God to show you how you can do some of this work. I'm not sure what's in Leicester, but I'd be willing to bet that there's a place nearby where you can help with what God has clearly placed on your heart as the most important thing to do.
There's no reason for you to get distracted with worry over the rules that other churches have for marriage or for ordination. We don't perform marriages between two people who aren't Christian. The Church of England does. We don't ordain women. The Assemblies of God do. We include the Deuterocanonical books in Holy Scriptures. Baptists don't. But there's no reason for us to get our panties in a knot because they do things differently than we do.
Remember, after the Resurrection, when our Lord Jesus told Peter what was in store for him, Peter pointed at John and said, "What about him?" And Jesus said, "If I decide that he should tarry until I come again, what is that to you?" It's enough for you to work out your own salvation in fear and trembling.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Could you, Mark, explain as an example of Holy Tradition how veneration of icons became imbedded in Orthodox worship? (I'm not criticizing the custom- I'm thinking it is a good example of the establishment of a Holy Tradition.) This might clarify what exactly we mean by Holy Tradition and give us something more toothsome to discuss than all this tit-for-tat stuff that has been thrown around so far.
I'm afraid I cannot at the moment because I have to go out. However, this link will go some way. Check out the "See Also" section for icon veneration.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
