Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Declaration of Religious Freedom (DIGNITATIS HUMANAE) in Vatican 2: Yay, or Nay?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
    Yes, there are types of government other than a full democracy and a dictatorship, I know this might be hard for you to process. However, I suppose a full democracy 'could' work, if it had an overlaying constitution, such as the U.S. does, establishing such religion.
    The US is in no way a full democracy. It is a republic.

    As far as I can see, the only good to come out of Vatican II was adoption of the vernacular for services. I might find more to like if I knew more about it.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      I might find more to like if I knew more about it.
      Yeah....that might help

      Not a big fan of vernacular used in services, but it doesn't exactly hurt anything, or go against any doctrine, so can't say I would actively oppose it.
      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

      -Thomas Aquinas

      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

      -Hernando Cortez

      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
        I would say Nay. It's pretty much the only thing I disagree with Vatican 2 on, and I disagree 'very' strongly with it. What say you guys?
        Which part of the Dignitatis Humanae do you disagree with, and why?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
          Yeah....that might help

          Not a big fan of vernacular used in services, but it doesn't exactly hurt anything, or go against any doctrine, so can't say I would actively oppose it.
          My views of Vatican II are largely informed by the books Clerical Error and Goodbye, Good Men, both written by Catholics with an axe to grind.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            History also suggests that the church is better when operated apart from a government. Rodney Stark's The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World's Largest Religion argues that the church became more corrupt when entangled with politics; people with no personal religious beliefs were getting church positions for personal gain.

            To be fair, this wouldn't necessarily crop up as a problem if the proposal was simply that only one religion were allowed. Still, who gets to determine the bounds of what is orthodox Christianity? Is Catholicism? Protestantism? Oneness Pentecostals? Jehovah's Witnesses? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and whoever gets to draw it has great power.
            Right now it's operating apart from a government and it hasn't been more irrelevant in a long, long time.
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
              Yes, there are types of government other than a full democracy and a dictatorship, I know this might be hard for you to process. However, I suppose a full democracy 'could' work, if it had an overlaying constitution, such as the U.S. does, establishing such religion.
              I don't think a true democracy even exists, but for the purpose of this conversation it doesn't matter, because the only way to maintain an authentic expression of Christianity being the state religion is if the only people in positions of power over the church was himself an authentic Christian, like everything else with government the only long term way to establish such a thing is autocracy, and as we know from Spain's example, the successor cannot always be trusted to keep with he autocratic traditions.

              And even assuming a benevolent dictatorship, such control is offensive to human dignity.

              The final option is a theocracy of some sort, and if the only way to proceed in government is through the church then you will find a much higher proportion of corruption than otherwise would occur. The issue of power corrupting has already been demonstrated by the Prosperty trash in an economic sense, let alone access to public policy.

              On the other hand, the Church can call for a secular government that protects all faiths, so that no corruption of definition will end with the Church being flat pursecuted (In that country), which is a very reasonable position to take.

              Lastly, are you not Roman Catholic? How much room do you have to dissent when a council has made such an important decision?
              Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                Right now it's operating apart from a government and it hasn't been more irrelevant in a long, long time.
                I can't agree, genuine Christianity in Asia and Africa has been booming in recent decades.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                  I don't think a true democracy even exists, but for the purpose of this conversation it doesn't matter, because the only way to maintain an authentic expression of Christianity being the state religion is if the only people in positions of power over the church was himself an authentic Christian, like everything else with government the only long term way to establish such a thing is autocracy, and as we know from Spain's example, the successor cannot always be trusted to keep with he autocratic traditions.

                  And even assuming a benevolent dictatorship, such control is offensive to human dignity.

                  The final option is a theocracy of some sort, and if the only way to proceed in government is through the church then you will find a much higher proportion of corruption than otherwise would occur. The issue of power corrupting has already been demonstrated by the Prosperty trash in an economic sense, let alone access to public policy.

                  On the other hand, the Church can call for a secular government that protects all faiths, so that no corruption of definition will end with the Church being flat pursecuted (In that country), which is a very reasonable position to take.

                  Lastly, are you not Roman Catholic? How much room do you have to dissent when a council has made such an important decision?
                  1) Or, it could be a democratic republic with an overlaying Constitution that either cannot be changed, or is extremely hard to change (like the U.S. Constitution). That would successfully establish it as the state religion, in a democratic society. Even then, your point about corrupt leaders rings true for just about every single type of government ever.
                  2) As for your point about dictatorships...I suppose you think I said that the Church should have absolute power over the state? I don't remember ever saying that....but even then, the Church has doctrines, creeds, laws, and above all, the Holy Scriptures, which it is required to abide by, so even if it had absolute power, it couldn't actually be classified as a dictatorship anyway, as a dictatorship requires a leader, who's power is not restrained by any laws, Constitution, or overlaying code.

                  3)As for your point about Roman Catholics.....uh, what? Do you have any idea how many people with high-ranking positions 'in' the Catholic Church, disagree with certain decisions made by it? Heck, the Church even let Galileo write and publish a book criticizing the Pope, only stopping him when he stopped the criticism, and started personally insulting the Pope.
                  Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                  -Thomas Aquinas

                  I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                  -Hernando Cortez

                  What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                  -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                    3)As for your point about Roman Catholics.....uh, what? Do you have any idea how many people with high-ranking positions 'in' the Catholic Church, disagree with certain decisions made by it? Heck, the Church even let Galileo write and publish a book criticizing the Pope, only stopping him when he stopped the criticism, and started personally insulting the Pope.
                    Galileo's crime was criticizing geocentrism in the vernacular.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      Galileo's crime was criticizing geocentrism in the vernacular.
                      Yeah, but they let him off easy, and didn't charge him for it 'until' he started insulting the Pope. (Not to mention, all science at that time 'supported' geocentrism)
                      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                      -Thomas Aquinas

                      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                      -Hernando Cortez

                      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        Galileo's crime was criticizing geocentrism in the vernacular.
                        Even then, it still stands. People were critical of the Church and the Pope all the time.
                        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                        -Thomas Aquinas

                        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                        -Hernando Cortez

                        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                          1) Or, it could be a democratic republic with an overlaying Constitution that either cannot be changed, or is extremely hard to change (like the U.S. Constitution). That would successfully establish it as the state religion, in a democratic society. Even then, your point about corrupt leaders rings true for just about every single type of government ever.
                          2) As for your point about dictatorships...I suppose you think I said that the Church should have absolute power over the state? I don't remember ever saying that....but even then, the Church has doctrines, creeds, laws, and above all, the Holy Scriptures, which it is required to abide by, so even if it had absolute power, it couldn't actually be classified as a dictatorship anyway, as a dictatorship requires a leader, who's power is not restrained by any laws, Constitution, or overlaying code.
                          I fear I was unclear, I was criticizing multiple possible church-state relations; I do not know what you're specifically advocating for so I talked about a few.

                          3)As for your point about Roman Catholics.....uh, what? Do you have any idea how many people with high-ranking positions 'in' the Catholic Church, disagree with certain decisions made by it? Heck, the Church even let Galileo write and publish a book criticizing the Pope, only stopping him when he stopped the criticism, and started personally insulting the Pope.
                          I think you miss understand me. That wasn't an attack. That was an honest question. I do not know how much dissent is allowed within your magisterium. For Protestsnts if there is sufficient distress there is usually a schism, but we do not consider ourselves the one holy catholic apostolic church .
                          Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I fear I was unclear, I was criticizing multiple possible church-state relations; I do not know what you're specifically advocating for so I talked about a few.
                            Oh....well, my points still stand.
                            I think you miss understand me. That wasn't an attack. That was an honest question. I do not know how much dissent is allowed within your magisterium. For Protestsnts if there is sufficient distress there is usually a schism, but we do not consider ourselves the one holy catholic apostolic church .
                            I never took it as an attack in the first place.
                            Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                            -Thomas Aquinas

                            I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                            -Hernando Cortez

                            What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                            -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                              For Protestsnts if there is sufficient distress there is usually a schism, but we do not consider ourselves the one holy catholic apostolic church .
                              Some of us do, though we have different ideas about what it means to be catholic and apostolic than the Roman church does.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                                Oh....well, my points still stand.


                                I never took it as an attack in the first place.
                                1. No it doesn't. My point still stands about the danger of government interference.

                                2. Alright, you seemed offended by my question. I'm happy you don't feel attacked.

                                Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                                Some of us do, though we have different ideas about what it means to be catholic and apostolic than the Roman church does.
                                Certainly, we do, I perceive the boundaries of the Church to be broader than my denomination. However, if I found that I strayed from the Statement of Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God I could not in good faith remain, and so I would find it my moral duty to join an existing group that agrees with me, or else schism if no such group exists. I was questioning how far a Catholic can disagree with their organization while in good faith remaining.
                                Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Physiocrat, 10-16-2017, 08:55 AM
                                59 responses
                                28,605 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Rushing Jaws  
                                Working...
                                X