Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login?



10/13/2018 4:10 am  #11


Re: What About Catholicism?

119 wrote:

Relevant to the thread: Why Do Catholics & Protestants Pretend It's One or the Other?

The Zionist Conspirator wrote:

While the ancient churches have far fewer "denominations" than radical Fundamentalist Protestantism, they still have four of them, each of which makes perfect sense until you listen to one of the others.

​It mainly seems to happen because in Western countries because Orthodox are thin on the ground. In a country with a lot of Orthodox the Catholicism or Protestantism doesn't arise the same way.

​Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox share a lot in common. This is also the case with Greek/Byzantine Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (since the Vatican II era they increasingly appear indistinguishable apart from the filioque in the creed and the attitude to the authority of the Pope). At least on a personal level it feels quite easy to move from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. A lot of the time I prefer Orthodox liturgies, the Orthodox church fathers are very interesting and are still very much contemporary reference points, Orthodox monasticism and their mystical tradition is very impressive. 

     

 

10/13/2018 8:55 am  #12


Re: What About Catholicism?

Obviously, Jews don't agree that their views aren't based in the Scripture, and that the oral Torah is not legitimate. But I was clearly just responding to the claim Protestants are making the same criticisms of Catholics that Catholics make of Jews. There may be some interesting similarities, but the devil is in the details. The analogy being alleged between Catholicism and Judaism doesn't prove much on its own.

 

10/13/2018 4:41 pm  #13


Re: What About Catholicism?

119 wrote:

[...]
"Protestantism's arguments against Catholicism are identical to Catholicism's arguments against Judaism;"
[...]

Flatly wrong from a factual standpoint, independently from any religious belief or lack thereof.

Protestantism is to Catholicism as Karaite Judaism is to Rabbinic Judaism. It is a question of different paradigms of the proximate medium of divine Revelation.

Rabbinic Judaism & Catholicism: it is a book plus an oral tradition, both interpreted by an authoritative magisterium. (Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy share the Catholic position, differing from it on the identification of the concrete offices who hold magisterial authority.)

Karaite Judaism & Protestantism: It is just a book.
 

Last edited by Johannes (10/13/2018 4:41 pm)

 

10/13/2018 7:34 pm  #14


Re: What About Catholicism?

IOW they are all of them human constructions. They are all just a book.

 

 

10/14/2018 12:41 am  #15


Re: What About Catholicism?

I see similarities here:

Matthew & Mark wrote:

And why do you break the commandment of G-d for the sake of your tradition?  (Matt 15:3, Mark 7:8)

“You’re doing it wrong!” is the oldest theological argument there is.
 

Martin Luther wrote:

That We Are To Reject The Doctrines of Men:
 
I, Martin Luther, have published this brief book for the comfort and saving of the poor consciences which are by the law of men held in bondage in monasteries and convents;

 

Johannes wrote:

Karaite Judaism & Protestantism: It is just a book.

That’s what they say. But are they right?

Why would Karaites accept the Prophets & Writings as canonical (the Nevi’im and Ketuvim were determined by “Rabbinic Judaism”) but change the counting of the omer and drop the wrapping of tefillin? Why accept “Rabbinic Judaism” on the content of the TaNaKh*, but not on other normative practices that came before the schism? One criticism (among many!) is that they exchanged one oral tradition for another. And we could say the same thing about any number of Protestant traditions.

*Why not add the (awesome!) story of Chanukah, the way the protestants edited their bibles?

Last edited by 119 (10/14/2018 1:28 am)

 

10/14/2018 2:16 am  #16


Re: What About Catholicism?

The similarities point seems to be rhetorical more than substantial. It proves little on its own. A thief might well complain at tax time that the government is stealing from him, but on its own this apparent similarity is of little significance without analysing the details of each situation.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum