- Jul 1, 2013
- 9,199
- 8,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
It depends on how you look at it. See below.But no current tradition is actually 1st Cent.
Nobody says it has to. Or I'm not saying that anyway. Indeed, the Catholic Church has freely admitted that her understanding of doctrine has improved over time. It's a bit simplistic to say that we believe the same things today as we did centuries ago, with the only difference being a better understanding now as compared to then. But at the same time, I don't think that's a terribly inaccurate way to phrase it.It's unreasonable to expect any 21st Cent church to simply reproduce 1st Cent belief.
With respect, I think that sells the ancients short and, at the same time, vastly overestimates modernity's importance. I am a male American Millennial. Now, I can study history, pray, pore over the scriptures and everything else. But at the end of the day, that is my perspective: male, American, Millennial. I can't be something other than what I am. My life is a speck of dust on the canvas of history.We have the same problem as the Apologists: we're a different culture facing different questions than the 1st Cent church. But in many cases I think we're better off to do our reinterpretation directly from NT sources, rather than starting with a tradition that is already a reinterpretation.
Sacred Tradition gives me access to a larger, broader Christian experience which takes into account my own limited perspective at the point in time in which I live, while at the same time providing a continuity of belief which goes back to day one of the Church.
With the acknowledgement that this is strictly opinion, I personally find that approach to be more trustworthy than simply relying upon my own limited perspective.
A fact which, again, with respect, argues my point better than it does yours. The "reformers" sought to "correct" what they perceived as errors in the teaching of the faith, though without realizing they lacked superior sources and more comprehensive knowledge of the history of theology.This is to some extent what the Reformers thought they were doing. But we have a lot better sources than they do, both for the 1st Cent and even for patristic and medieval theology.
Nobody's perfect. Mistakes are understandable. We're all only human. But people of good faith staked their souls and eternal destinies on what the "reformers" taught, then and now. And by your own admission, what was taught was flawed, incomplete and not properly understood.
When I talk to Protestant friends about these matters, I ask them semi-rhetorically if God cares about which doctrines we believe in. If the answer is "no", it's hard to justify separating from Rome. If the answer is "yes", it's equally hard to argue that "reformers" didn't do more harm than good, at least in the short term.
I'd like to pause here and state that I am rather enjoying this discussion with you as your posts seem calm and fact-based. Thank you for elevating the conversation.
Upvote
0