Prediction: How Progressive Christians Will Save Jesus

[joe1776]

I don't think I would exactly describe it as dying like you do. There's still plenty of church folks and the church is still making wads of money.

I describe it as dying because the downward trend has been long-term and its causes I believe are fundamental.

In Post 4, @George-ananda summed up my position neatly:

I have thought much the same way as you Joe.

Christianity is very entrenched in western tradition and in people's thinking about God and the purpose of life. The problem is that some of the thinking that may have worked in the past does not work today. Jesus as a core character can still and always work but that trappings among old-school beliefs and teachings do not fit the modern world with our increased education, knowledge and exposure.

Yes, Christianity needs a modern makeover. The core character (Jesus) can still work.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Statistics say the American Christian churches membership has gone down over the past 10 years.

Well, that could be. JW’s are global, though, and membership is increasing, as I just showed.

 

[pearl]

Feeny and the priest who talked to me were giving their own positions?

Feeney had much in common with Archbishop Lefebvre both defenders of orthodoxy and considered themselves more Catholic than the pope, as apparently did the priest you talk about.

All my Catholic friends and relatives , for the first 20 years of my life, thought that theirs was the only path to heaven. Did I just dream that?

No you did not dream it. When I was 10 years old and a Westly Methodist I attended a Mass with my girlfriend who was Catholic. She had to elbow me to close my mouth after the priest said Protestants were going to hell!

Weren't there some significant changes made during Vatican Two in the sixties?

Indeed it did

Taking up the Council's teaching from the first Encyclical Letter of my Pontificate, I have wished to recall the ancient doctrine formulated by the Fathers of the Church, which says that we must recognize "the seeds of the Word" present and active in the various religions (Ad gentes, n. 11; Lumen gentium, n. 17). This doctrine leads us to affirm that, though the routes taken may be different, "there is but a single goal to which is directed the deepest aspiration of the human spirit as expressed in its quest for God and also in its quest, through its tending towards God, for the full dimension of its humanity, or in other words, for the full meaning of human life" (Redemptor hominis, n. 11). The "seeds of truth" present and active in the various religious traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God, who "enlightens every man coming into world" (cf. Jn 1: 9) and who became flesh in Christ Jesus (cf. Jn 1: 14). They are together an "effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body" and which "blows where it wills" (Jn 3: 8; cf. Redemptor hominis, nn. 6, 12).

Because of the human spirit's constitutive openness to God's action of urging it to self-transcendence, we can hold that "every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person" (Address to the Members of the Roman Curia, 22 Dec. 1986, n. 11; L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 5 Jan. 1987, p. 7).
Indeed, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, "since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery" (Gaudium et spes, n. 22)

I think more progressive changes are needed.

There were many theological advisors at the Council that had the same thought. The Church does not mark time in decades, but centuries.

 

[joe1776]

Feeney had much in common with Archbishop Lefebvre both defenders of orthodoxy and considered themselves more Catholic than the pope, as apparently did the priest you talk about.



No you did not dream it. When I was 10 years old and a Westly Methodist I attended a Mass with my girlfriend who was Catholic. She had to elbow me to close my mouth after the priest said Protestants were going to hell!



Indeed it did

Taking up the Council's teaching from the first Encyclical Letter of my Pontificate, I have wished to recall the ancient doctrine formulated by the Fathers of the Church, which says that we must recognize "the seeds of the Word" present and active in the various religions (Ad gentes, n. 11; Lumen gentium, n. 17). This doctrine leads us to affirm that, though the routes taken may be different, "there is but a single goal to which is directed the deepest aspiration of the human spirit as expressed in its quest for God and also in its quest, through its tending towards God, for the full dimension of its humanity, or in other words, for the full meaning of human life" (Redemptor hominis, n. 11). The "seeds of truth" present and active in the various religious traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God, who "enlightens every man coming into world" (cf. Jn 1: 9) and who became flesh in Christ Jesus (cf. Jn 1: 14). They are together an "effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body" and which "blows where it wills" (Jn 3: 8; cf. Redemptor hominis, nn. 6, 12).

Because of the human spirit's constitutive openness to God's action of urging it to self-transcendence, we can hold that "every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person" (Address to the Members of the Roman Curia, 22 Dec. 1986, n. 11; L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 5 Jan. 1987, p. 7).
Indeed, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, "since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery" (Gaudium et spes, n. 22)



There were many theological advisors at the Council that had the same thought. The Church does not mark time in decades, but centuries.

I linked a lengthy Wikipedia article on our topic. Here are a few paragraphs from it. The 1992 Catechism differed in interpretation of the Latin phrase Ecclesiam nulla salus from those of earlier times.

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means: "outside the Church there is no salvation".[1][2] The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body."[3]

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430):
"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

Saint Thomas Aquinas (died A.D. 1274):
"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church." (Summa Theologiae)

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia

 

[pearl]

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430):

Saint Thomas Aquinas (died A.D. 1274):

And where were the Protestants then? Outside the church was outside of Christ and outside of Christ there is no salvation. The Church does not save, only God saves. The Church states (Mysterium Ecclesiae) that frequently doctrine has been phrased in "the changeable conceptions of a given epic" and it must be distinguished between the truth infallibly taught and the way that that truth has been phrased.

 

[joe1776]

And where were the Protestants then? Outside the church was outside of Christ and outside of Christ there is no salvation. The Church does not save, only God saves. The Church states (Mysterium Ecclesiae) that frequently doctrine has been phrased in "the changeable conceptions of a given epic" and it must be distinguished between the truth infallibly taught and the way that that truth has been phrased.

Please clarify: Where do YOU think the Protestants were then? Were they outside the Catholic Church therefore not eligible for salvation?

 

[DPMartin]

Traditional Christianity is dying. But there's a progressive movement within it that I think has a good chance to salvage something worthwhile from the traditional version.

With some careful tweaking, Jesus can be presented as an exemplar, what the human character ought to be, useful for Christians and non-Christians, whether he was fictional or not.

Jesus will have to love unconditionally because conditional love (I will love you if you please me) is a lesser kind of love that arrogant people offer as a manipulative device to coerce compliance with their wishes.

Jesus won't be presented as a front man for an unjust, vengeful god that loves conditionally (accept the Christian doctrine or you will go to Hell). Instead, Jesus will offer an example for people who strive to become better human beings as their only form of worship.

Jesus can't be presented as a pacifist. Consider this rabid dog analogy: We see a rabid dog in the street and recognize it as a danger both to human and animal life, so we have to kill it. We regret that the killing was necessary. The only thing we hate is our ignorance in not knowing how to cure rabies. The killing was an act of love for humanity and for other animals. Jesus would see the necessary killing of dangerous human beings in self-defense as ultimately an act of love for humanity.

Jesus would hate the sin but love the sinner. Consequently, he would see the wrongdoer as sick not evil. Thus, progressive Christians will advocate quarantine and not punishment for offenders. For example, child molesters might be sent to an adult-only town for life or until cured, even on a mild first offense. There, they could live and work normally but without access to children. The result would be a safer world for children.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

what most don't get is the Lord Jesus doesn't care if Christianity dies off or not. He finds the faithful and keeps them. what Christians do with there religion is mood.

when Jesus entered a synagogue sometime the scripture would point out that it was their synagogue, not necessarily His synagogue. the Gospel can be preached any where no churches or those who call themselves Christians necessary. in case you haven't notice the institution for over 1300 years of Christianity in the now free world was the catholic church and it was corrupted by the world as it gets. the Gospel still goes out until the Lord God decides otherwise.

 

[pearl]

Please clarify: Where do YOU think the Protestants were then? Were they outside the Catholic Church therefore not eligible for salvation?

Protestantism has no history in Christianity prior to the 16th cent.

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430):

Saint Thomas Aquinas (died A.D. 1274):

You do the math.

 

[pearl]

when Jesus entered a synagogue sometime the scripture would point out that it was their synagogue, not necessarily His synagogue.

And in that synagogue He interpreted the Scripture he read, the Apostles and later the Evangelists (the primitive church) interpreted the teachings of Jesus, the church continues to interpret for what it means for the life of the church today.

 

[joe1776]

Protestantism has no history in Christianity prior to the 16th cent.

That's true but there were Christians who thought like Protestants long before they organized.But your point is irrelevant.

Here's a partial quote from Pope Pius IX (died in 1878) made after the Reformation.... But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom 'the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,' (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation.....

 

[DPMartin]

And in that synagogue He interpreted the Scripture he read, the Apostles and later the Evangelists (the primitive church) interpreted the teachings of Jesus, the church continues to interpret for what it means for the life of the church today.

for its own purposes. the true interpretation of the Word of God to God the Father's satisfaction is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the fulfillment in the flesh of God's image and likeness, and seeing Jesus is the fulfillment of scripture (law and prophets) then Jesus can only be the true interpretation. men make their theologies and interpretations to fit their own needs and wants, to justify themselves amongst themselves, and certainly not before God. the Kingdom of God is the fulfillment of what God wants. you know thy Kingdom come thy will be done "in earth" as in Heaven. i know the prayer says on earth but scripture says "in earth"

in the Kingdom of God if anyone disagrees with the Word of God made flesh the Lord Jesus Christ then they will not be there long for sure. so the only interpretation of the Word of God acceptable in the Kingdom of God is Jesus.

but in the world today you can get away with what ever as long as you suck air.

 

[pearl]

Here's a partial quote from Pope Pius IX (died in 1878)

Who had no more authority than the present pope, or any other. I've stated many times that the teaching of the church does not stagnate, nor confine itself to a literalist interpretation, there exists a development of dogma.

 

[pearl]

Word of God

The 'word' of God in the Word of God is human.

then Jesus can only be the true interpretation. men make their theologies and interpretations

And the only place you find Jesus' interpretation is in the NT written by men and their theology.

 

[joe1776]

Who had no more authority than the present pope, or any other. I've stated many times that the teaching of the church does not stagnate, nor confine itself to a literalist interpretation, there exists a development of dogma.

I'm having trouble understanding what you think the traditional position of the Church was on this topic. I have no doubt whatsoever that the pope I quoted was exactly right."the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known." That was its position for most of its existence until the middle of the 20th century. It changed during my lifetime.

The traditional position appealed to the arrogant side of human nature: Heaven was a country club reserved for Catholics. Many Catholic traditionalists think that the church lost much of its appeal when it liberalized. I think their argument make sense. Today's church is less arrogant, therefore less appealing.

 

[pearl]

Many Catholic traditionalists think that the church lost much of its appeal when it liberalized. I think their argument make sense.

Protestant fundamentalism towards Scripture is as Catholic fundamentalism is to dogma. And Catholic fundamentalism is dangerous for it is attractive to people who look to the Church for ready answers to the problems of life and both invite people to a kind of intellectual suicide. The Church did not liberalize, it went back to its roots, to Scripture, in relation to its future.

I'm having trouble understanding what you think the traditional position of the Church was on this topic.

No salvation outside the church was never an official teaching of the Church. It must be understood with the mind of the church and not private interpretation.

 

[DPMartin]

The 'word' of God in the Word of God is human.



And the only place you find Jesus' interpretation is in the NT written by men and their theology.

they spoke and wrote according to the Spirit of truth, hence the Spirit of God, not of men's theology and interpretations, unless they said they speak from their own view:


Joh_4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Joh_14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh_15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Joh_16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.


therefore you seem to seek to justify Catholicism and its not justified in the Kingdom of God. the Spirit of Truth the Truth of God is justified by its own nature and source.

the prophets and the rest were entrusted to speak what God said, not want they think of what God said or what God said in their view.

 

[pearl]

they spoke and wrote according to the Spirit of truth,

The Johannine Jesus had many things to say that his disciples could never understand in his lifetime. (16:12)

The Paraclete is "the Spirit of Truth" who supplies guidance, insight along the way of all truth (16:13)

When God gave the Son, divine revelation was granted in all its completeness, Jesus was the very Word of God. But on earth that Word spoke under the limitations of a particular culture and set of issues. The Paraclete, present to every time and culture brings no new revelation, rather he takes the revelation of the Word made flesh and declares it anew, facing the things to come. Guidance, insight is not dictation.

 

[viole]

I believe Christianity is not dying. I believe the chaff is being sifted from the wheat. I believe Jesus will always be Lord and Savior to a Christian.

I saw dead people looking healthier than Christianity here in Europe, mate.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Traditional Christianity is dying. But there's a progressive movement within it that I think has a good chance to salvage something worthwhile from the traditional version.

With some careful tweaking, Jesus can be presented as an exemplar, what the human character ought to be, useful for Christians and non-Christians, whether he was fictional or not.

Jesus will have to love unconditionally because conditional love (I will love you if you please me) is a lesser kind of love that arrogant people offer as a manipulative device to coerce compliance with their wishes.

Jesus won't be presented as a front man for an unjust, vengeful god that loves conditionally (accept the Christian doctrine or you will go to Hell). Instead, Jesus will offer an example for people who strive to become better human beings as their only form of worship.

Jesus can't be presented as a pacifist. Consider this rabid dog analogy: We see a rabid dog in the street and recognize it as a danger both to human and animal life, so we have to kill it. We regret that the killing was necessary. The only thing we hate is our ignorance in not knowing how to cure rabies. The killing was an act of love for humanity and for other animals. Jesus would see the necessary killing of dangerous human beings in self-defense as ultimately an act of love for humanity.

Jesus would hate the sin but love the sinner. Consequently, he would see the wrongdoer as sick not evil. Thus, progressive Christians will advocate quarantine and not punishment for offenders. For example, child molesters might be sent to an adult-only town for life or until cured, even on a mild first offense. There, they could live and work normally but without access to children. The result would be a safer world for children.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

An exemplar who tolerated slavery?

Your moral role model, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[MonkeyFire]

That definition is not in common usage. From Wikipedia:

Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others.

That's violence under any circumstance... But if you make it non-violent it can be done in self defense... Nor does it denounce passive equanimity (Ahimsanibbana)... The thing that will make war obsolete.