Modernism: Development of Doctrine or departure from orthodoxy?

[boughtwithaprice]

I have been reading a fascinating series of books called readings in Moral Theology, edited by Charles Curan

The current one I am on is "Change in Official Catholic Moral Teaching." No. 13
It is particularly interesting to read about Leo XIII and his views on politics in light of the events of the French revolution, then contrast them with Pius XI in his views on the state in light of the advent of communism. It seems that the church was dealing with the two extremes of unrestricted individualism vs state run tyranny, and the answers are different depending on the state the culture is in at the time. It took till John XXIII to put it all together in the encyclical Pacem in Terris.


Some claim that modernism is a heresy that is to be resisted, and that we should harken back to the days of the 19th century. I guess that depends on how you define modernism, but should we really discard all the work of Popes and theologians of the 20th century merely because of a 19th century warning on modernism? I don't think so. I believe that human beings and human society is more complicated and requires honest analysis and a learning from our mistakes, a progression if you will. If modernism is to be defined as a progression of knowledge from what has gone before and an adaptation of doctrine to that knowledge, I do not consider it a heresy, but a necessity.

What do others think?

[Fish and Bread]

Perhaps you would be interested in this thread:

http://foru.ms/t6031640-pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

It is about an encyclical that has to do with modernism.

[boughtwithaprice]

the New York times article requires a purchase to read. It appears interesting, but cannot be accessed without cash:(

[Fantine]

The great Dominican ecclesiologist Yves Congar once noted that it takes at least fifty years for the fruits of an ecumenical council to be fully realized. And frankly, the Second Vatican Council was not just any council; it called for the most profound reimagining of the Catholic Church in four hundred years.

http://www.liguorian.com/report_card.html

The problems that the Church is experiencing today might be considered normal for a post-conciliar era, according to this article.

I think that the tug of war between progressives and conservatives has always taken place within the Church, and that, painful as it is, it is probably necessary to help the Church achieve a healthy balance.

Rather than criticize our conservative/liberal brethren, we should probably give thanks to them for performing a valuable function.

[Fish and Bread]

the New York times article requires a purchase to read. It appears interesting, but cannot be accessed without cash:(

It was free back when I posted the thread, but I think NYT articles get archived after a free days, and then require a purchase. I don't have any credit cards with which to do it at this point.

It was an interesting editorial. Very negative in tone towards the encyclical, though. I'm afraid my memory isn't good enough to give a much longer summary than that, though. Perhaps if anyone is really interested, they could possibly find a paper that bought the reprint and has free archives dating back longer. I know NYT articles are often picked up by smaller dailies for republication. Though I'm not sure an editorial like this would be, necessarily. It seems like such a niche subject that I was kind of surprised to see it in the first place (But surprised in a good way -- I love reading religious stories in the press. :)).

[boughtwithaprice]

http://www.liguorian.com/report_card.html

The problems that the Church is experiencing today might be considered normal for a post-conciliar era, according to this article.

I think that the tug of war between progressives and conservatives has always taken place within the Church, and that, painful as it is, it is probably necessary to help the Church achieve a healthy balance.

Rather than criticize our conservative/liberal brethren, we should probably give thanks to them for performing a valuable function.
I agree that we should not criticize those brothers and sisters in the progressive vs traditional spectrum, and this thread was not meant as a criticism of our traditional brethren. It was meant to discuss wether any view of progress in doctrine is to be resisted as modernism or embraced as our understanding of our Church, our Lord and morality improves.

[QuantaCura]

I think you need to define Moderism. According to the Church's usage, however, Modernism is a heresy and development of doctrine is an orthodox approach to theology. For example, Loisy was a modernist, while Newman was not.

What Modernism is, is the idea that the Church's consciousness creates dogmas and then changes them to suit the times. It is the "synthesis of all heresies" because it denies that dogmas are truths revealed by God--rather, the modernist makes them of human origin. They claimed that the "historical Jesus" and what he actually taught was not the same as the Divine Christ. The Church's consciousness instead produced this dogma and then the Scriptures were produced by the Church to further this.

We see Modernism rearing its head nowadays primarily regarding certain moral teachings that some think need to be changed to fit the times. Such modernists see themselves as simply opposing old human wisdom and promoting a human wisdom that has learned more. But this is the fundamental error--it asserts such doctrines handed down by the Church are completely human in origin and not given by God. It is not a reasonable challenge to human opinion, but a challenge to the eternal wisdom of God Himself.

Development of doctrine, on the other hand, is not changing the truths of the faith, but rather it is making explicit what was once implicit and applying the timeless principles to new circumstances. New terminology may be created to further these ends.

The example in the OP is a good example of development, not Modernism. In the 19th century, the Church was primarily concerned with false "rights" being asserted. Therefore, we see strict condemnations and definitive assertions of man's actual moral obligations. On the other hand, in the 20th century she is most concerned with authentic rights being trampled. The same timeless principles are being applied in both cases to new situations and thus doctrine concerning them is developed. The teaching in both centuries is complementary and helps shape the Catholic teaching on authentic rights and moral duties, the power of the state, and civil responsibilities.

Contrary to what certain modernists and traditionalists would assert given a few issues, there was not doctrinal change. Usually they see change because terminology is used differently in one case than in another (often time it is a heretical group that uses Catholic terms wrongly, and this is condemned). They also often confuse a change in policy or discipline with a change in truth.

[Fish and Bread]

What Modernism is, is the idea that the Church's consciousness creates dogmas and then changes them to suit the times. It is the "synthesis of all heresies" because it denies that dogmas are truths revealed by God--rather, the modernist makes them of human origin. They claimed that the "historical Jesus" and what he actually taught was not the same as the Divine Christ. The Church's consciousness instead produced this dogma and then the Scriptures were produced by the Church to further this.

We see Modernism rearing its head nowadays primarily regarding certain moral teachings that some think need to be changed to fit the times. Such modernists see themselves as simply opposing old human wisdom and promoting a human wisdom that has learned more. But this is the fundamental error--it asserts such doctrines handed down by the Church are completely human in origin and not given by God. It is not a reasonable challenge to human opinion, but a challenge to the eternal wisdom of God Himself.

This is an important theological problem that I think unfortunately many fail to address. Essentially, to be Christian in any meaningful historic sense, one has to affirm that what went before was to at least some degree of divine origin, in fact probably a majority of it, because if one doesn't accept some things, a lot of times it unravels the rationale underlying why one would accept other things. For example, if one accepts the resurrection because of the bible, but doesn't accept the virgin birth, then the bible is no longer infallible and there is no need to accept the resurrection. If one believes the Eucharist is the Body of Christ because of the authority of the Church and the same one doesn't believe in Papal infallibility, then one implicitly is rejecting the Eucharist as the Body of Christ also, as that one's reasoning for believing it was the authority of the church, which they now reject (Obviously this wouldn't apply to Eastern Orthodox, because they accept the authority of what is theoretically a different church, even though at one time it was the same church in a literal sense -- so they could believe in the one and not the other).

If, on the other hand, Jesus was just a guy with some theories about God, then he has no authority, and can be accepted or rejected partially or wholly without any real consequence. Further, following that line of reasoning we don't know a whole heck of a lot about that guy -- since scripture and tradition would be moot and apart from that the historic evidence is slim -- so one couldn't even follow Jesus as a philosopher. These books on the historic Jesus are generally just guesswork and often contradict each other.

I've been stuck for some time now in the sense that I see the historical weight of evidence telling me that to truly be what is historically Christian (Which in many respects I'd like to be), I'd have to be a practicing Roman Catholic. Yet, I really have some issues with this God that the religion posits. So, I'm stuck. I was much happier when I could believe liberal Episcopalianism was historically legitimate. Now I feel caught between a religion I don't want to practice (Roman Catholicism), an agnosticism I don't want to practice (or not practice or however one might put it), and a religion I'd kind of like to practice but can't practice with intellectual integrity (Episcopalianism). It's a situation I am beginning to think may never resolve itself with me.

On a broader note, it drives me nuts that so many don't seem to see these issues for what they are. For example, why won't ECUSA just break and form their own religion? Why won't Protestantism in general? They don't seem to intellectually hold together as following the Christ of faith. They might make sense though as something formed by new ideas and based upon these new revelations or religious conjectures. I might be interested in them on that level. But they won't take that last jump away. At the same time, they won't take a jump closer to historical Christianity. It's like they're stuck in a sort of limbo.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Some great posts here.

I think what this often comes down to is an oversimplification or confusion over the concept of "change" in the Church. As QuantaCura says, the Church does change in many aspects, and develops in many aspects - but that this makes the idea of a authoritative, unchanging magisterium impossible is false.

[QuantaCura]

Some great posts here.

I think what this often comes down to is an oversimplification or confusion over the concept of "change" in the Church. As QuantaCura says, the Church does change in many aspects, and develops in many aspects - but that this makes the idea of a authoritative, unchanging magisterium impossible is false.

Bishop Fulton Sheen described the Church as a river--she has a rock-solid bed and dynamic water. Both parts are necessary. It would be wrong to want to only have the solid part--a dry, barren, ditch--or just the dynamic part--unrestrained water, which would wreak havoc along the countryside.

[boughtwithaprice]

Bishop Fulton Sheen described the Church as a river--she has a rock-solid bed and dynamic water. Both parts are necessary. It would be wrong to want to only have the solid part--a dry, barren, ditch--or just the dynamic part--unrestrained water, which would wreak havoc along the countryside.
the difficulty sometimes lies in being able to tell the difference between rock and water. It is not always clear to everyone. One requires an assent of faith, and the other merely requires religious obedience, which can change.

[JasonV]

We see Modernism rearing its head nowadays primarily regarding certain moral teachings that some think need to be changed to fit the times. Such modernists see themselves as simply opposing old human wisdom and promoting a human wisdom that has learned more. But this is the fundamental error--it asserts such doctrines handed down by the Church are completely human in origin and not given by God. It is not a reasonable challenge to human opinion, but a challenge to the eternal wisdom of God Himself.

Even if we accept that the Dogmas of the Church are divine in origin, we can still point out that these dogmas have a human filter, capable of error in some respect. No man is perfect.

This is an important theological problem that I think unfortunately many fail to address. Essentially, to be Christian in any meaningful historic sense, one has to affirm that what went before was to at least some degree of divine origin, in fact probably a majority of it, because if one doesn't accept some things, a lot of times it unravels the rationale underlying why one would accept other things.

An interesting argument F&B. But does this statement not imply that faith is "reasonable"?

Is it?

For example, if one accepts the resurrection because of the bible, but doesn't accept the virgin birth, then the bible is no longer infallible and there is no need to accept the resurrection. If one believes the Eucharist is the Body of Christ because of the authority of the Church and the same one doesn't believe in Papal infallibility, then one implicitly is rejecting the Eucharist as the Body of Christ also, as that one's reasoning for believing it was the authority of the church, which they now reject (Obviously this wouldn't apply to Eastern Orthodox, because they accept the authority of what is theoretically a different church, even though at one time it was the same church in a literal sense -- so they could believe in the one and not the other). I believe the Eucharist is the body of Christ because I believe it. I know the Church teaches it, but that's not why I accept it. At the same time, I do not accept Papal Infallibility, nor do I see a need to accept it in order to believe in the Eucharist. Reasonable? Maybe not, but I do not believe that Faith is necessarily reasonable.

I've been stuck for some time now in the sense that I see the historical weight of evidence telling me that to truly be what is historically Christian (Which in many respects I'd like to be), I'd have to be a practicing Roman Catholic. Yet, I really have some issues with this God that the religion posits. So, I'm stuck. I was much happier when I could believe liberal Episcopalianism was historically legitimate. Now I feel caught between a religion I don't want to practice (Roman Catholicism), an agnosticism I don't want to practice (or not practice or however one might put it), and a religion I'd kind of like to practice but can't practice with intellectual integrity (Episcopalianism). It's a situation I am beginning to think may never resolve itself with me. I am personally convinced that "Traditional Christianity" of the first two centuries was as widely varied in theory and practice as we see today in "Modern Christianity". I think Paul Bradshaw has done an excellent job in demonstrating that Christianity was not a homogeneous body as many pretend. And I am not simply talking about the Orthodox vs the Hetrodox/Gnostics. Within the so-called Orthodox bodies themselves we see a huge divergence of belief and practice.

[Caedmon]

It always aggravates me when the word "Modernism" starts getting thrown around in a debate, as if all they need to do is slay this 'monster,' and all life's problems will start magically solving themselves. I also get aggravated, because I never know exactly whether they're talking about divergence from Catholic moral teaching, or the social, literary and artistic movements of the early 20th century. I think they use it on purpose because it's an ambiguous term, and they can use it as a label to slap on everything-I-don't-agree-with.

[Fantine]

We all perceive information differently.

Our cultures, lifestyles, educational achievement, and experiences will affect our perceptions.

I really think that one of the big problems the Church faces today is that Catholics are so much more diverse than they were in years past.

No matter how you look at it, a recent African convert whose previous beliefs included ancestor worship and who lives in a tribal culture will see Catholic truths differently than an American cradle-Catholic who lives in a comfortable suburb and works in corporate management.

And so the "orthodox" say, "Hmmm...the world's Catholics are extremely different, overwhelmingly different. It's almost natural that they would look at the same Bible and the same truths and have different perceptions. But hey--our growth area is in the tribal cultures of Africa--so let's cater to them. And we'll just tell the westerners--we don't care if it is relevant to you, or makes sense to you, it's the truth. It was the truth for your medieval serf ancestors and it's exactly the same today."

And what I think modernists feel is that it's OK if civilizations in different stages of development envision Church and Biblical revelation differently.

We can be one Church catering to diversity by giving more power to individual bishops to determine how best to reach their populations....

Or one Church stubbornly promoting one-size-fits-all Christianity, and alienating most of the sizes (i.e. orthodoxy.)

[boughtwithaprice]

It always aggravates me when the word "Modernism" starts getting thrown around in a debate, as if all they need to do is slay this 'monster,' and all life's problems will start magically solving themselves. I also get aggravated, because I never know exactly whether they're talking about divergence from Catholic moral teaching, or the social, literary and artistic movements of the early 20th century. I think they use it on purpose because it's an ambiguous term, and they can use it as a label to slap on everything-I-don't-agree-with.
very well said. This really is the reason that I started this thread.
What gets labeled as modernism, may simply be development of doctrine and not modernism as the Holy See understands it. Great post:)

[Fish and Bread]

An interesting argument F&B. But does this statement not imply that faith is "reasonable"?

Is it?

Well, that seems to be part of what Saint Pius X indicated in his encyclical referenced earlier in this thread, if I was reading it correctly and recall it accurately (Both of which may not be the case. :)), that faith is a reasonable thing. I think most people would say that in faith there are elements of logic involved but also elements of hope that together form the whole we call faith. Maybe a little bit of fear in there, too.

I wonder what we have left when suddenly faith is only blind hope and logic is out the window, though. Isn't suddenly God whatever we want? And, if so, can be possibly be real in that context? Or just an image of ourselves as people? You notice in the United States, there are more denominations and doctrines than you can count, and they pose contradictory gods while proclaiming that God is one. If God is one, only one, at most, could possibly be fully correct. And if Christ is an incarnational being who really lived, then part of what we have to look to is history to figure out which church is right.

If Christ is not incarnational, if he wasn't real in the strictest tangible sense of the term, then really we've stepped outside Christianity as it's been understood traditionally. At that point, it's a new religion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that -- I waffle back and forth a lot and am torn many days on what I believe and how to categorize myself -- but I wish new religions would be true to themselves and really be new religions. I find it hard to deal sometimes with philosophies that claim to be grounded in a historical figure and yet don't have grounding in history. They can be very beautiful in their beliefs in many respects -- but it is weird that they claim the bible and Christian tradition while sometimes clearly not really following them. Why not have new scripture and traditions if they want to step outside of what has gone before in such obvious ways?

I am personally convinced that "Traditional Christianity" of the first two centuries was as widely varied in theory and practice as we see today in "Modern Christianity".

If these Christians sects or bodies of belief within the orthodox church died, they were probably false. I am not saying this stemming from any individual faith belief, just logic. If the man Jesus was flesh blood and blood and promised he'd be with us to the end of the age, and that his Holy Spirit would be among us, and his church the pillar of all truth against which the gates of hell would not prevail against it -- then *if* he was truthful, then there is going to be a chain of a consistent faith stretching today or Christianity is without merit (Not that a chain of faith proves Christianity was true, but if it isn't there, it isn't true -- and if it's there for one or two groups and not the rest than the only candidates for the church are that group or two.). And I don't count generic believe in Jesus as faith -- there have to solid theological beliefs there -- a faith that can be described as "one faith, one Lord, one baptism" like St. Paul talked about in scripture.

Now, if you throw the words of scripture out the window, fair enough, you can believe whatever you want. *But* if we go back so far as to say scripture is fake, then this figure of Christ left behind nothing solid to be believed in. Then it's *all* conjecture, and he'd be a very strange God or divine messenger to come down and not allow a true record to be kept. So it's probably just a man at that point who did and taught things, what we don't really know, and that's no basis for a religion, is it? To be Christian in a recognizable sense, one has to believe in the scriptures and a god-man who literally died upon a cross and rose on the third day. If not, it might be a super-cool religion with super-cool people, but it's something new, in my view.

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

very well said. This really is the reason that I started this thread.
What gets labeled as modernism, may simply be development of doctrine and not modernism as the Holy See understands it. Great post:)
I think it's much easier to argue things case by case that to just throw the term modernism around as is done in the OP - because as Joe says, it's an ambiguous term at times. Part of the problem is you get a lot of wanna be theologions (like me) who don't actually know they're subject too well and then you get those kind of horrific generalities. Luckily we're blessed in that we do (or at least did :( ) have some learned folks in OBOB, like Irenaeus and Michelina.

[boughtwithaprice]

I think it's much easier to argue things case by case that to just throw the term modernism around as is done in the OP - because as Joe says, it's an ambiguous term at times. Part of the problem is you get a lot of wanna be theologions (like me) who don't actually know they're subject too well and then you get those kind of horrific generalities. Luckily we're blessed in that we do (or at least did :( ) have some learned folks in OBOB, like Irenaeus and Michelina.
this thread was here because the learned folks, as you say, were making the generalities:sigh: I thought we could discuss the meaning of the term, and not degrade it further

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

this thread was here because the learned folks, as you say, were making the generalities:sigh: I thought we could discuss the meaning of the term, and not degrade it further
I though we had been discussing the meaning of the term? :scratch: What's upsetting you?

I just meant that if you have a beef with a particular thing being labeled as modernism, it is better to take the argument to that individually, rather than arguing over the term, because it is a vague term. We've already asserted in this thread that there is the water and the rock - really what the debate is now is what is the water and what is the rock.

This raises, of course, the complexity of modernism, because it is a sliding scale from moral relativism on the one hand, and those who dispute the infallibility of a certain doctrine that is fairly well entrench in the history of the Church, and a million shades of grey in between - all come under the heading modernism. This does go to show that modernism is a term that's limited in its usefulness.

[JasonV]

Fish,

I see where you are coming from. I see all religions in such a way as they are "additions" onto older religions. They take some of the former faith, and alter it's meaning somewhat, and it becomes the new faith.

I take it from your last post that you disagree with this. But look at your Old Testament for a great example. Why have it in your Bible if you don't follow it?

Well, Christianity has changed the meaning of it all, and even though it's still there, it's not done. Same goes for my church, for example, where we still read the creeds, study tradition, and use the Bible, but don't necessarily follow "orthodoxy" in the sense it's understood today.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that per se, as it's been done many times before and will likely be done many times more in the centuries to come.


Well, that seems to be part of what Saint Pius X indicated in his encyclical referenced earlier in this thread, if I was reading it correctly and recall it accurately (Both of which may not be the case. :)), that faith is a reasonable thing. I think most people would say that in faith there are elements of logic involved but also elements of hope that together form the whole we call faith. Maybe a little bit of fear in there, too.

I wonder what we have left when suddenly faith is only blind hope and logic is out the window, though. Isn't suddenly God whatever we want? And, if so, can be possibly be real in that context? Or just an image of ourselves as people? You notice in the United States, there are more denominations and doctrines than you can count, and they pose contradictory gods while proclaiming that God is one. If God is one, only one, at most, could possibly be fully correct. And if Christ is an incarnational being who really lived, then part of what we have to look to is history to figure out which church is right.

If Christ is not incarnational, if he wasn't real in the strictest tangible sense of the term, then really we've stepped outside Christianity as it's been understood traditionally. At that point, it's a new religion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that -- I waffle back and forth a lot and am torn many days on what I believe and how to categorize myself -- but I wish new religions would be true to themselves and really be new religions. I find it hard to deal sometimes with philosophies that claim to be grounded in a historical figure and yet don't have grounding in history. They can be very beautiful in their beliefs in many respects -- but it is weird that they claim the bible and Christian tradition while sometimes clearly not really following them. Why not have new scripture and traditions if they want to step outside of what has gone before in such obvious ways?



If these Christians sects or bodies of belief within the orthodox church died, they were probably false. I am not saying this stemming from any individual faith belief, just logic. If the man Jesus was flesh blood and blood and promised he'd be with us to the end of the age, and that his Holy Spirit would be among us, and his church the pillar of all truth against which the gates of hell would not prevail against it -- then *if* he was truthful, then there is going to be a chain of a consistent faith stretching today or Christianity is without merit (Not that a chain of faith proves Christianity was true, but if it isn't there, it isn't true -- and if it's there for one or two groups and not the rest than the only candidates for the church are that group or two.). And I don't count generic believe in Jesus as faith -- there have to solid theological beliefs there -- a faith that can be described as "one faith, one Lord, one baptism" like St. Paul talked about in scripture.

Now, if you throw the words of scripture out the window, fair enough, you can believe whatever you want. *But* if we go back so far as to say scripture is fake, then this figure of Christ left behind nothing solid to be believed in. Then it's *all* conjecture, and he'd be a very strange God or divine messenger to come down and not allow a true record to be kept. So it's probably just a man at that point who did and taught things, what we don't really know, and that's no basis for a religion, is it? To be Christian in a recognizable sense, one has to believe in the scriptures and a god-man who literally died upon a cross and rose on the third day. If not, it might be a super-cool religion with super-cool people, but it's something new, in my view.

[Fish and Bread]

I see where you are coming from. I see all religions in such a way as they are "additions" onto older religions. They take some of the former faith, and alter it's meaning somewhat, and it becomes the new faith.

I take it from your last post that you disagree with this. But look at your Old Testament for a great example. Why have it in your Bible if you don't follow it?

Well, Christianity has changed the meaning of it all, and even though it's still there, it's not done. Same goes for my church, for example, where we still read the creeds, study tradition, and use the Bible, but don't necessarily follow "orthodoxy" in the sense it's understood today.

Those Jews who converted to Christianity at the beginning (apostles, disciples, the church in Jerusalem, etc..) generally had a specific rationale stemming from Judiasm that made, from their perspective, their change in perspective on the scriptures and such alright. They felt that God had come down as Jesus Christ and changed the rules previously established, and fulfilled the prophecies and other foreshadowing from their existing scriptures, thus lending them new definition interpretations for the Christian era. So their reasoning made some sense within the context of their previous faith (i.e. the faith was centered around God and talked about a messiah to come, God came down from heaven as that messiah and gave new rules).

Within the framework of Catholicism as it's been practiced, gives the LLC it's framework for which to explain changes? God has not come down from heaven again. That's why some folks feel the explanation comes not from the religion itself, but from outside of a faith context (i.e. secular humanism, rationalism, etc..). Once one takes things outside that context and starts to establish that we can evaluate and change faith outside of a faith context completely, then belief in almost everything becomes optional. If I don't trust point "a" established at a given council for whatever reason, why should I trust point "b" about a similar matter? Why accept the trinity and not the virgin birth (or whatever)? The foundations for them all are similar.

I'm not trying to talk you into being something I am not, a traditionalist, I'm just trying to understand exactly where these beliefs come from. Personally, as you've probably seen elsewhere, I'm very torn when it comes to my own beliefs, so I'm certainly not out to convert anyone. :)

[JasonV]

Within the framework of Catholicism as it's been practiced, gives the LLC it's framework for which to explain changes? God has not come down from heaven again.

The Bishops are the representatives of Christ. So a Bishop basically has authority to interpret and determine what will be believed and practiced within his jurisdiction. All tradition and scripture were given in the context of the social situation that existed at the time. 99% of the Bible wasn't God speaking directly, but rather through his servants. If the Holy Spirit inspires his servants today (ie. the Bishops) to move in a certain direction, based on our social context we live in, then why should we reject that?

That's why some folks feel the explanation comes not from the religion itself, but from outside of a faith context (i.e. secular humanism, rationalism, etc..). Once one takes things outside that context and starts to establish that we can evaluate and change faith outside of a faith context completely, then belief in almost everything becomes optional. If I don't trust point "a" established at a given council for whatever reason, why should I trust point "b" about a similar matter? Why accept the trinity and not the virgin birth (or whatever)? The foundations for them all are similar.

Which is why all beliefs are "optional" in my church for all laypersons. Only the clergy have certain "required" beliefs, such as, for example, the historical understanding of the Trinity.

I'm not trying to talk you into being something I am not, a traditionalist, I'm just trying to understand exactly where these beliefs come from. Personally, as you've probably seen elsewhere, I'm very torn when it comes to my own beliefs, so I'm certainly not out to convert anyone.

I understand that and appreciate your efforts.

[Fish and Bread]

The Bishops are the representatives of Christ. So a Bishop basically has authority to interpret and determine what will be believed and practiced within his jurisdiction.

Even if that is accurate, the jurisdiction of a bishop is his diocese. The Old Catholic movement as a whole can really only make claim to have three dioceses where they have solid links the first episcopal presence and established diocese in the region (Urterect and two nearby ones). So wouldn't your theory mean that those living outside those areas in Europe would have to obey Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Anglican bishops?

All tradition and scripture were given in the context of the social situation that existed at the time. 99% of the Bible wasn't God speaking directly, but rather through his servants. If the Holy Spirit inspires his servants today (ie. the Bishops) to move in a certain direction, based on our social context we live in, then why should we reject that?

The question would become what direction are the bishops as a whole moving? Remember, the LLC is a very small minority of the world's bishops. If one took a poll of all bishops in the world who claim apostolic succession, they'd vote in Roman Catholicism, essentially. Unless your claim is that the LLC or Old Catholic movement has the only valid bishops or is distinctly and exclusively the church -- which I don't think is where you stand based on previous things you've posted.

I understand that and appreciate your efforts.

Thanks.

[JasonV]

Even if that is accurate, the jurisdiction of a bishop is his diocese.

If that were true, then there would be no Pope.

The Old Catholic movement as a whole can really only make claim to have three dioceses where they have solid links the first episcopal presence and established diocese in the region (Urterect and two nearby ones). So wouldn't your theory mean that those living outside those areas in Europe would have to obey Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Anglican bishops?

Not really. Cross jurisdictional issues abound. Essentially you're point is void where Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox are concerned, as multiple jurisdictions exist which violate the canons. If you notice, they can cross diocese boundaries within their own traditions, not to mention crossing boundaries with each other! With those problems in place, how can anyone point a finger at Old Catholic denominations?

The question would become what direction are the bishops as a whole moving? Remember, the LLC is a very small minority of the world's bishops. If one took a poll of all bishops in the world who claim apostolic succession, they'd vote in Roman Catholicism, essentially. Unless your claim is that the LLC or Old Catholic movement has the only valid bishops or is distinctly and exclusively the church -- which I don't think is where you stand based on previous things you've posted.

I acknowledge that majority = orthodoxy traditionally in the Church. However, I personally do not uphold that view, especially viewed in the light that might = right = orthodoxy in the Church. For example, without the power of the Roman Empire, would we even be reciting the Nicene creed today? Maybe not. At any rate, Christ stated that where two or three are gathered together in His name, there He is in their midst. If two or three Bishops gather and pray about something, then that's sufficient for me.

Keep in mind that I am a Universalist. Therefore it doesn't matter what you believe, we will all be saved in the end.

[Fish and Bread]

If that were true, then there would be no Pope.

We're getting a little off-track here. :) The overall point I was making with that line of thought was that if one is obligated by God to believe what their bishop believes but can pick their own denomination from several with variant beliefs and go back and forth at will, it's really just that they're making their own faith to a large degree. And if God just says believe what your bishop does, and he can believe anything he wants, then God seems to have a lot of contradictory stances on a lot of issues. :) How can truth be multiple choice?

[JasonV]

How can truth be multiple choice?

Good question. I tend to view it as God has given us light, reflected through a human lens. It would seem that if God is just, he would give that light to all mankind, not just some isolated tribe in the middle east. That being the case, we need to accept that God will enlighten all through the lenses they use to view and draw closer to Him.

= Universalism.