tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post1457298452952362520..comments2023-04-02T07:03:21.099-05:00Comments on Principium Unitatis: Love and Ecumenical UnityBryan Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-65764937282950534612008-05-14T15:57:00.000-05:002008-05-14T15:57:00.000-05:00In reference to your last comment, by enlightening...In reference to your last comment, by enlightening them of the faults in their practices, they may see the light and need for conversion to the truth. I understand the wording is a bit difficult, but my point is that, when people are shown the deficiencies in their own practices, and are shown why their practices are deficient of the full glory of Christ, then they are more ready to accept the truth. Does that flow? Sorry, my original post was a short ejaculatory response without much thought being given to formulate my idea.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058363667259070862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-86858237293675737342008-05-14T13:28:00.000-05:002008-05-14T13:28:00.000-05:00JDubya,Thanks for your comments. I agree that Cath...JDubya,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. I agree that Catholics isolate themselves too. I said as much in my post. I'm an equal-opportunity proponent of inter-tradition dialogue. :-)<BR/><BR/>As for your comments about my formerly being a Calvinist, do you think I should have less zeal for the Catholic Church and the full visible unity of all Christians? If so, why?<BR/><BR/>How exactly are you reaching the conclusion that I am "isolating" others who have not seen the truth of Catholicism?<BR/><BR/>I don't understand what you mean by:<BR/><BR/><I>but to seek unity and understanding through the actions of these splinter groups as to better enlighten them.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for your feedback.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-46239300330735491882008-05-14T13:18:00.000-05:002008-05-14T13:18:00.000-05:00Noticing your conversion to "our" faith, I am stri...Noticing your conversion to "our" faith, I am stricken with the understanding that many who convert are overly zealous in their defense of the Faith. When you were a Protestant, I imagine you defended your Calvinist theology with the same vigor that you defend true Catholic teachings. You are in a very good parish, one that I am familiar with. The New Cathedral has played host to my High School alma mater for years and I am aware of the solid teachings from the Pastor there. However, I cannot accept your conclusion that Christians ghettoize themselves according to their Faith traditions. Even in the heavily Catholic St. Louis, you still find large numbers of other denominational practice. Especially after evaluating the maps provided. My family is from New England and is 98% Episcopalian/Anglican and so are many of their neighbors and all of their spouses were before marriage. These maps do support your hypothesis that we heavily ghettoize ourselves, but it fails to capture the fact that many of the "landed" families of New England and the Northeast in general are members of the first faith tradition in the U.S. and that of our founding fathers, Anglicanism. If we evaluate Anglicanism in its organic movement, many Anglo-Catholics practice the catholic faith and fully celebrate the seven sacraments but lack full union with the Holy See because of political reasons(The Anglican Use/Pastoral Provision has sought to rectify some of these issues). But I digress, my original point was to emphasize the fact that we are not to use our faith isolate those who have not seen the truth in Catholicism, nor to analyze the isolation of other faith traditions, because God knows if anyone isolates themselves, it is we Catholics; but to seek unity and understanding through the actions of these splinter groups as to better enlighten them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058363667259070862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-17982855816108548342008-05-14T13:13:00.000-05:002008-05-14T13:13:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058363667259070862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-54028973330356995832008-05-10T01:05:00.000-05:002008-05-10T01:05:00.000-05:00Grifman,Thanks for your comments. I'm not attempti...Grifman,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. I'm not attempting to know anyone's motives. My comment about sola scriptura is that it implicitly (though not explicitly) appeals to the sinful sort of pride in fallen man. That does not mean that any particular person who affirms sola scriptura has done so out of sinful pride. I'm talking about something intrinsic to the position itself, in relation to fallen human nature. <BR/><BR/>As for your comment that I'm coming across as condescending, it would be helpful to me if you would give me examples. Otherwise, such a comment doesn't help me know what to change. You may not be used to talking to someone who is not a relativist or a pluralist. (It doesn't help that I don't know anything about you, so I don't know where you are coming from.) I believe that some things are true, and other things are false. And so I talk about false things as though they are false. I don't talk about false things as though they are true or are either true or false. I don't talk about a range of positions as though they could all (simultaneously) be true, if I know one of them to be true. If anything I say is false, I would greatly appreciate having that pointed out.<BR/><BR/>I can be entirely respectful to a person who holds a false belief, while treating the false belief he holds as false. That, in my opinion, is not being condescending; it is being honest and charitable. I make a distinction between persons and the positions they hold. I criticize false positions. I generally do not criticize persons.<BR/><BR/>So, I do criticize Protestantism for the gnosticism that is implicit in its various expressions. But I generally don't criticize Protestants per se. If you keep that distinction in mind, it may help you view my criticisms of Protestant *positions* more accurately and charitably. Thanks again for your comments, and please feel free to explain where and why you think I'm wrong, if you think I'm mistaken about something.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-61000042692027456472008-05-09T21:24:00.000-05:002008-05-09T21:24:00.000-05:00BrianThis all sounds pretty empty when in two prio...Brian<BR/><BR/>This all sounds pretty empty when in two prior posts you sll but call Protestants modern day "gnostics" and say that their beliefs are based upon "the sin of pride". I don't have a problem with being told I'm wrong (in your opinion), but it's rather presumptuous on your part, IMO, to say you know my motivations, or the motivations of millions of Protestants that you don't even know. Attributing bsd motives to people is no way to encourage the "table talk" and dialog that you say you want.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if you realize this but your posting style comes off as rather condescending sounding at times. I've learned a lot about the Catholic perspective from your blog, but it always seems that half the time I have to filter out the "attitude" to get to anything worthwhile reading. <BR/><BR/>If you want to post so you get pats on the back from other Catholics, then fine. But if want Protestants to hear you with respect, you need give respect and to talk to Protestants, and dialog with them, not talk down to them - mo matter how right you think you are.<BR/><BR/>You can take that as you like.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/><BR/>GrifmanGrifmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01536661110230304225noreply@blogger.com