Pope Assures Rabbi Church Will Not Proselytize

[Era Might]

There you see that wasn't so hard, you answered the question. It probably is not a satisfactory answer to many Roman Catholics, but you did answer it. 

 

Yeah but by breaking up my posts I get one step closer to 15k

[Apotheoun]

Yeah but by breaking up my posts I get one step closer to 15k

You're going to have to break them up into a lot smaller segments if you want to get there any time soon.

[Apteka]

That's because I don't understand the question. True religion is friendship with Christ. Roman Catholicism is one tradition of living that friendship.

 

Era,

 

Thank you for the answer. Initially in this thread you had said proselytism was one religion attempting to convert members of another religion, and you associated a negative connotation with this. You contrasted this with evangelization, which is not a call to religion but to Christ. You then made the confusing remark that the Gospel is true religion. I have since been trying to understand your position but it seems perhaps this is an issue that you yourself are still meditating on. Now in response to your answer, you say Roman Catholicism is one tradition of living the true religion. You seem to be leaning towards a belief in some form of idealistic primordial Christianity that unites all Christian traditions (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) but is not fully encompassed by any of them. For a Roman Catholic to attempt to convert a Protestant, or an Orthodox to convert an Roman Catholic, etc, would therefore be illogical since they all are different forms (?) of this one primordial Christianity. A corollary would seem to be that they are all to some extent departures, especially the Orthodox and Catholic varieties since they focus more on the religious aspect than the simplicity of Christ's friendship that you speak of. I think you would agree that membership of the Roman Catholic Church is not necessary for salvation, and certainly not adhering to any of Rome's dogmas. This is my understanding of your personal opinion on matter, feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

[Era Might]

Era,

 

Thank you for the answer. Initially in this thread you had said proselytism was one religion attempting to convert members of another religion, and you associated a negative connotation with this. You contrasted this with evangelization, which is not a call to religion but to Christ. You then made the confusing remark that the Gospel is true religion. I have since been trying to understand your position but it seems perhaps this is an issue that you yourself are still meditating on. Now in response to your answer, you say Roman Catholicism is one tradition of living the true religion. You seem to be leaning towards a belief in some form of idealistic primordial Christianity that unites all Christian traditions (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) but is not fully encompassed by any of them. For a Roman Catholic to attempt to convert a Protestant, or an Orthodox to convert an Roman Catholic, etc, would therefore be illogical since they all are different forms (?) of this one primordial Christianity. A corollary would seem to be that they are all to some extent departures, especially the Orthodox and Catholic varieties since they focus more on the religious aspect than the simplicity of Christ's friendship that you speak of. I think you would agree that membership of the Roman Catholic Church is not necessary for salvation, and certainly not adhering to any of Rome's dogmas. This is my understanding of your personal opinion on matter, feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

 

I am not against religious tradition, but I don't think that is what sets Christianity apart. I don't believe in any kind of idealistic or primordial anything. I think the Gospel is the leaven in the bread, the salt of the earth, the meaning in the joke. I find St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians helpful to me in understanding how Gospel relates to history:

 

For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apol'los," are you not merely men? What then is Apol'los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apol'los watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

 

--1Cor 3:4-15

Religious tradition is what we build, but the foundation is always Christ, and what we build will be revealed on the last day in the fire, whether that is our structures, our rituals, whatever. The foundation is always Christ. When you speak of "Roman Catholicism" you seem to speak of a doctrinal or institutional edifice. But I think that is an unsustainable way to approach the church, because society is constantly changing, and the church along with it. But Christ is always the head of the corner, always the rock on which we stand. I am not against religion, we are all rooted in certain traditions, but our starting point is always Christ himself. Not an idealized or primordial anything, but Christ, the man we encounter in the Gospels.

[Apteka]

I am not against religious tradition, but I don't think that is what sets Christianity apart. I don't believe in any kind of idealistic or primordial anything. I think the Gospel is the leaven in the bread, the salt of the earth, the meaning in the joke. I find St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians helpful to me in understanding how Gospel relates to history:

 

 

But you believe there is a difference between what you call "true religion" and "religious tradition." The former being some basic, "mere Christianity" based on Gospel fundamentals, and the latter a human construct. The important thing is that someone embrace the Gospel fundementals (="true religion) and not the "religious tradition."

 

Religious tradition is what we build, but the foundation is always Christ, and what we build will be revealed on the last day in the fire, whether that is our structures, our rituals, whatever. The foundation is always Christ. When you speak of "Roman Catholicism" you seem to speak of a doctrinal or institutional edifice. But I think that is an unsustainable way to approach the church, because society is constantly changing, and the church along with it. But Christ is always the head of the corner, always the rock on which we stand. I am not against religion, we are all rooted in certain traditions, but our starting point is always Christ himself. Not an idealized or primordial anything, but Christ, the man we encounter in the Gospels.

 

 

See Era, to recall back to another discussion we had on another thread, you do endorse a type of formlessness in Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism does not, or at least did not, understand it's "religious tradition" (to use your term) as a human construct that changes with the times. Romans viewed (I'm now thinking the past tense is more appropriate) the entire development from the deposit of faith (perhaps equivalent to "true religion" / "Gospel" in your terms) as something Spirit inspired and not the work of man. The Roman Church possessed the whole and true Gospel such that the Roman Church equaled the Body of Christ, and no other group could claim the same.  You clearly don't believe in this, and as much as you are saying you're not against religion, you are against the essence of religion. Religion exists on a foundation that is firm, and not formless. In your worldview all there is is Christ, everything else an apparent departure.  I honestly think you endorse more of a Protestant theology than anything else.

[Era Might]

But you believe there is a difference between what you call "true religion" and "religious tradition." The former being some basic, "mere Christianity" based on Gospel fundamentals, and the latter a human construct. The important thing is that someone embrace the Gospel fundementals (="true religion) and not the "religious tradition."

 

 

See Era, to recall back to another discussion we had on another thread, you do endorse a type of formlessness in Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism does not, or at least did not, understand it's "religious tradition" (to use your term) as a human construct that changes with the times. Romans viewed (I'm now thinking the past tense is more appropriate) the entire development from the deposit of faith (perhaps equivalent to "true religion" / "Gospel" in your terms) as something Spirit inspired and not the work of man. The Roman Church possessed the whole and true Gospel such that the Roman Church equaled the Body of Christ, and no other group could claim the same.  You clearly don't believe in this, and as much as you are saying you're not against religion, you are against the essence of religion. Religion exists on a foundation that is firm, and not formless. In your worldview all there is is Christ, everything else an apparent departure.  I honestly think you endorse more of a Protestant theology than anything else.

 

The Roman tradition is not even the only tradition within Catholicism. I don't know what "Mere Christianity" is. Everyone has a community in which they live and grow. Put a Jesuit in a Carthusian monastery and he would probably be stifled.

 

But, of course, Christ is always the beginning and the end of any community. I don't view religion as a "departure" so much as a living out of that friendship with Christ, in the many different circumstances in which people find themselves. And Christ must always be in the midst, because even within the church the pharisees live on, the blind lead the blind, and the sheep lack shepherds. So, too, the Saints carry on their work, the prophets raise their voices, and the poor hear the good news. That is the church, a field full of wheat and chaff.