Faithful Witness vs. the religion of "I think".

[thessalonian]

Let's start with a passage.
2Tim.2
[1]
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus,
[2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

I was thinking on my way in to work, what would have happened if someone had stood up in the group of faithful witnesses that Timothy selected and said "well I think the scriptures mean this"? They would have been cast out on their heads. But today it seems that "I think" and "my interpretation is" are phrases of virtue in Protestantism.

What someone thinks is more important than what is true. I went to a little mass last friday and the priest, a very humble man I've heard speak before, talked about the traditions of the Church predating Christ. Many are tied up in the Old Testament Judaism. I thought of all the Protestant pastors asserting themselves and their ideas on TV and Radio, Shuler, Graham, Baker, Robertson, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, etc. etc. All assertin "I think" theology with varying levels of submission ot the actual word of God. Many have become household names. Yet in the Catholic Church very few bishops and priests have become household names even though many of them have great understanding. They see themselves as conduits of the truth to the people rather than asserting themselves as discovers of the truth. They pass along the Traditional teachings that are thousdands of years old, rather than (t) traditions thought up by men that are only a few hundred years old at best. Some created in the life of the preacher.

The faithful witness does not assert his own teaching but passes on what he is witness to. What he has been taught. What he thinks is subordinate to the teachings that are passed on. He must be submissive to and true to the teachings of the Church passed on for 2000 years.

I thank God that I am a part of the teachings of the Catholic faith passed on from one faithful witness to another. Discovering nothing really. But being given so much! Lord may you find me to be a faithful witness when it is my time to be judged for entry into the kingdom of heaven.

Blessings

Edited June 13, 2006 by thessalonian

[blovedwolfofgod]

I dunno about this, especially your first premise. If you read the Epistle of Barnabus, which is a very early Christian writing taht said some weird stuff, or study the history of Mariology, you will find many people saying "this is the way it is" when they should have been saying "i think." Or the old views of sex and how it was bad, but now there is a better understanding. I dont know if the problem is a 'i think,' but maybe more of a issue of pride and the fact that protestants have to practically reinvent the wheel every time they start a church. They say 'i think' when they mean 'i know.' Many of our saints would adamantly defend that Mary was a sinner... they preached what they believed they were witness to, and they werent necessarily correct.

I agree in spirit on some levels, but the protestants go through the same stuff we did in doctrinal development, only they cut themselves off, have only existed for 500 years, and start a new church everytime someone disagrees with someone else, thus starting another organization that must reinvent the wheel.

[Franimus]

[quote name='blovedwolfofgod' post='1004590' date='Jun 13 2006, 11:06 AM']
I agree in spirit on some levels, but the protestants go through the same stuff we did in doctrinal development, only they cut themselves off, have only existed for 500 years, and start a new church everytime someone disagrees with someone else, thus starting another organization that must reinvent the wheel.
[/quote]
Maybe the Holy Spirit doesn't bother to keep them together like he did the Church?

[thessalonian]

Submission to the Church is what I am talking about and fidelity to what the Church teaches. Not to the whims of what someone thinks. I think religion does not neccessarily mean they use the words I think. Many times the assert their own thinking as fact, as the word of God, but it is still "I think" theology as it was not derived from the Churches teaching. You are only providing examples of I think theology at a level that did not reach the level of dividing from the Church. There is some allowing of what people think in matters of doctrine (not dogma) in the Church but not if it divides. Further, one cannot compare a writing in the 2nd century to one today as our ability to understand Church teaching as aided by 2000 years of developement of doctrine is greatly enhanced. We have far less an excuse for error.

Doctrinal development in protestantism is at one time a cancerous sore and at another time, a dead limb, ready to fall off. Their doctrines put them at a dead end with truth.

In context I stand by my post.

[quote name='Franimus' post='1004593' date='Jun 13 2006, 10:16 AM']
Maybe the Holy Spirit doesn't bother to keep them together like he did the Church?
[/quote]

This is obvious. The cancerous sore of division has run amok since the deformation of the 16th century.

Edited June 13, 2006 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

BWG,

I think the problem with your applying developement of doctrine to this thread is that the truths of the faith were not discovered and new when developement occured. They could still be known. They were still objective though not as easily understood as today and there was some accountability for them though not like today when doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the BVM are dogma. Yet they were knowable. They were a part of the deposit of the faith. Jesus said "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.". Objective truth. We worship in spirit and in truth. We are only to pass the truth along. Not make up our own story.

[thessalonian]

[Era Might]

This is a good point, because we can stray pretty far when we fail to understand Scripture as "blood" pumping through the veins of the Church, and instead isolate it from what has been handed on. Mark Shea cites polygamy as a good example in one of his books. The New Testament does not explicitly condemn polygamy, but we understand certain texts to forbid it because we read them in light of tradition. Christianity has never been a polygamous religion, and for good reason. If we ignore the living character of Scripture in the history of the Church, we will be forced to construct a new religion every generation. This is why the ECUSA is dying; it is cutting its faith off from the rest of Christian history. Maybe early Christians didn't support homosexual relationships, but that's just their interpretation.