Questions from a Catholic article

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

This came today from the Patheos Catholic newsletter:

Three Tough Questions to Ask "Bible Only" Christians

Here are the questions:

• Question 1: What About the First 300 Years?

• Question 2: What About People Who Couldn’t Read?

• Question 3: What About All the Different Interpretations?

Since I am an Eastern Orthodox prospect and RCIA attendee, these questions have easy answers for me. How does everyone else here, answer them?

[davo]

Since I am an Eastern Orthodox prospect and RCIA attendee, these questions have easy answers for me.

Why not share your 3 easy answers

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Why not share your 3 easy answers

There’s an oral and written tradition passed down. It’s called Sacred Tradition. Which is what Holy Scripture is a part of… Only the RC church would add the magisterium - to the equation. Same answer exists for all three questions.

tag. You’re it.

[davo]

How does that above answer your 3 initial asked

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

How does that above answer your 3 initial asked

It does. The original Catholic article and this WIki article - goes into more depth:

Sacred tradition

But it’s NOT just true with the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Sacred Tradition is what is passed down, through generations of Native American Holy People and Medicine people. It’s what distinguishes their teachings from “new age” stuff.

[davo]

Oh ok… in that case it might have just been quicker to have listed the simple answer to the simple question as is.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Oh ok… in that case it might have just been quicker to have given the simple answer to the simple question as is.

You might be right. I’m notoriously bad at multi tasting. And it’s a bad habit of mine. It sometimes prevents me, from seeing the obvious - simplicity itself. My bad.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

As a preterist, the (disputable) fact that all branches that claim sacred tradition got eschatology so wrong shows me that they’re fallible men, no greater than anyone else.

Yes, the church is composed of fallible men and women. But Christ did establish a church…even though there are different “interpretations”…in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions - over what a church is and what constitutes a church… I respect what everyone brings to the table…and what helps them, on their Christian journey.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Randy, given the choice between believing in sacred tradition and an interpretation I strongly believe, I go with the interpretation I strongly believe (preterism). I once attended mass at a Catholic church where the priest said Paul got the timing of Jesus’ return wrong. I couldn’t believe it.

I respect your position. There are elements of Roman Catholic theology, that I disagree with. And no element of Eastern Orthodox theology, that I would disagree with. Which is why I side, with the EO position. Anglican bishop and New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright - for all practical purposes - is a partial preterist. But I don’t know of ANY contemporary, notable RC, EO or Protestant theologian - that endorses full preterism. So I assume you embrace, some flavor of full preterism. If that works for you, on your Christian journey - then run with it.

[maintenanceman]

But I don’t know of ANY contemporary, notable RC, EO or Protestant theologian - that endorses full preterism. So I assume you embrace, some flavor of full preterism. If that works for you, on your Christian journey - then run with it.

Thanks Randy.