Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

[BillMcEnaney]

The nature of Post-Modern thought is, theoretically, to mine history for relevant information, whether it is in the field of philosophy, architecture, art, or theology, in order to develop a highly refined and, hopefully, superior end product. Modernism, by contrast, rejected historic formulations, and attempted to develop things from new foundations (i.e. reinvent the wheel, as it were). Post-Modernism today incorporates not only pre-Modern theories and philosophies, but relevant aspects of Modernism

By contrast, Traditionalism, which has always existed, rejects contemporary things and clings to those things which have a tried and proven history. The difficulty with Traditionalism is that it follows contemporary trends over time such that what was rejected a century earlier is embraced by Traditionalists a century later as they reject the things of contemporary society.

Finally, there is Conservatism where nothing is permitted to change after a specific point in time. For the Amish that point was reaching in the nineteenth century. For the EOC it was probably sometime in the fifth century.

The RCC is not Conservative, but contains within it Traditinalists such as yourself as well as some Modernists and some Post-Modernists.

I'm a little confused about Post-Modernism because the Post-Modernists I'm familiar with don't seem to want to do what you describe. Were you thinking about people like Michael Foucalt, Jaques Derrida, Jaques Lacan, Jürgen Habermas, and Richard Rorty. To me, they seem to on the intellectual far left.

I'm a Traditionalist Catholic because I want to believe what the Catholic Church has always taught and practice the Faith the way Latin Rite Catholics always did before Vatican II. Some people reject that council. But I resist the novelties, hoping a future pope will repeal them. It seems to me that Vatican II is and always has been disastrous, especially because of its religiously indifferent ecumenism that Pope Pius XI condemned in 1928.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

I'm a little confused about Post-Modernism because the Post-Modernists I'm familiar with don't seem to want to do what you describe. Were you thinking about people like Michael Foucalt, Jaques Derrida, Jaques Lacan, Jürgen Habermas, and Richard Rorty? To me, they seem to on the intellectual far left.

I'm a Traditionalist Catholic because I want to believe what the Catholic Church has always taught and practice the Faith the way Latin Rite Catholics always did before Vatican II. Some people reject that council. But I resist the novelties, hoping a future pope will repeal them. It seems to me that Vatican II is and always has been disastrous, especially because of its religiously indifferent ecumenism that Pope Pius XI condemned in 1928.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Here's an article from a postliberal journal I subscribe to.

Escaping the Cave of Liberalism

 

[The Liturgist]

Of those groups, however, the PCUSA has done the best job of formulating official doctrine. Many churches still have traditional confessional documents even though their actual theology doesn't quite agree. However recent confessional documents from the PCUSA represent current mainline views.

Forgive me, but if that’s true, why is the PCUSA still losing members at a faster rate than non-mainline churches, some of which also make use of cutting edge textual criticism as well as higher criticism?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Forgive me, but if that’s true, why is the PCUSA still losing members at a faster rate than non-mainline churches, some of which also make use of cutting edge textual criticism as well as higher criticism?

From my limited perspective, unlike the UMC which is staging the largest membership loss ever at this moment in the form of the newly-created International Methodist Church, the PCUSA has been sporadically hemorrhaging members fairly sporadically beginning with the Fundamenatalist/Modernist divide in the 1920's. The net result has been a succession of small Presbyterian denominations which, over time, have become increasingly less conservation. The most recent iteration, the ECO, is much more liberal that the Bible Presbyterians, the OPC, or the PCA. Although the actual net result has been many former Presbyterians who have either given up on religion or migrated to other denominations, there are also many active Presbyterians of all theological stripes.

 

[FredVB]

Well, that’s a bit like asking why one would join a religion and then not trust that same religion to be able to accurately and consistently interpret its own dogma according to the procedures established in the canonical scriptures of that religion by which it is to be lead. In other words, the question, while seeming superficially legitimate, actually becomes paradoxical.

I would argue that in theory, the only reason why we might have such a question at all is because the hierarchy of the church even in the West, has always been decentralized largely around metropolitical-episcopal centers of influence, for example, in the English world, Canterbury, and thus lacks the kind of unified, integrated leadership that is a fixture of religions like Scientology or Nizari Islam, which have unified command structures lead by David Miscavige and His Highness the Aga Khan IV respectively, and this diversification of power, which one expects was by deliberate design to prevent abuse and limit distortions (which we commonly see in religions with more centralized control), and which has been remarkably effective in doing this considering that an Anglican and an Armemian Orthodox, from opposite ends of the Christian world, of interrupted Eucharistic communion, are equally at home on this site and share certain core doctrines about the Trinity, Salvation and so on, can create the misguided impression that the Church is something of an intellectual abstraction rather than a unified reality.

In this day and age, like the scriptures state, people will love to have their ears tickled and avoid sound doctrine.

This is not only in the church.. It is with all information that is given to the public..

There is no church that is my religion. My Christian faith is shared by others, and among each other we are church. The faith is in Christ with repentance to be restored, from rebellion which is our life of sin, to God. The scriptures being the word of God can be trusted, no one on earth has higher authority on faith for believers.

 

[The Liturgist]

From my limited perspective, unlike the UMC which is staging the largest membership loss ever at this moment in the form of the newly-created International Methodist Church, the PCUSA has been sporadically hemorrhaging members fairly sporadically beginning with the Fundamenatalist/Modernist divide in the 1920's. The net result has been a succession of small Presbyterian denominations which, over time, have become increasingly less conservation. The most recent iteration, the ECO, is much more liberal that the Bible Presbyterians, the OPC, or the PCA. Although the actual net result has been many former Presbyterians who have either given up on religion or migrated to other denominations, there are also many active Presbyterians of all theological stripes.

I’ve heard some disturbing reports that suggest the PCUSA, which had been very good about accommodating more conservative congregations, to persuade them not to leave for ECO, is now going to take away the ability for clergy to refuse on moral principles to officiate at the obscene “weddings” of sexual deviants. Have you heard anything along those lines?

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no church that is my religion. My Christian faith is shared by others, and among each other we are church.

So is there a church or is there not a church? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I’ve heard some disturbing reports that suggest the PCUSA, which had been very good about accommodating more conservative congregations, to persuade them not to leave for ECO, is now going to take away the ability for clergy to refuse on moral principles to officiate at the obscene “weddings” of sexual deviants. Have you heard anything along those lines?

I have not heard that, but it would not surprise me. I stopped following developments in the PCUSA several years ago.

 

[FredVB]

So is there a church or is there not a church? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

There can be church. But church is not the religion. Christian church should conform to Christian religion, meaning faith and practices. Some of them might really be doing so. My faith seeks God's will, which shows in the scriptures, and ways we know we are divinely led.