M. Liccione kirjoittaa osoitteessa http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1100#comment-28150 hyvin. Hän sanoo esimerkiksi näin:
In the case of many Orthodox and many Protestants, what we’re dealing with is an attitude of fundamentalism, where by ‘fundamentalism’ I mean principled opposition to the idea of the substantive development of doctrine. With most Protestants, that takes the form of sola Scriptura. With many conservative Protestants, it finds expression in the doctrines of biblical literalism and verbal inerrancy, whereby the words of Scripture understood “literally” by the grammatico-historical method are taken as without any form of error whatsoever and as a wholly sufficient means of recording and transmitting divine revelation. With many liberal Protestants, it takes the form of a restless search for the “essence” of the Gospel and of the “real” Jesus behind churchly accretions and prejudices, beginning with the Pauline. With many relatively uneducated Orthodox, it takes the form of regarding adherence to first-millennium ecclesiastical formulations as eo ipso sufficient for understanding the faith once delivered to the saints, and therefore as incompatible with equally great adherence to formulations developed elsewhere after the schism. With many educated Orthodox, it takes the form of sophisticated objections, basically philosophical in nature, to the particular developments thereby formulated. Yet those objections are themselves partly motivated by the broader, more basic fundamentalism, which is always on the lookout for ways to depict the post-schism developments of Catholicism as logically incompatible with the pre-schism developments accepted by both sides.
In the case of many Orthodox and many Protestants, what we’re dealing with is an attitude of fundamentalism, where by ‘fundamentalism’ I mean principled opposition to the idea of the substantive development of doctrine. With most Protestants, that takes the form of sola Scriptura. With many conservative Protestants, it finds expression in the doctrines of biblical literalism and verbal inerrancy, whereby the words of Scripture understood “literally” by the grammatico-historical method are taken as without any form of error whatsoever and as a wholly sufficient means of recording and transmitting divine revelation. With many liberal Protestants, it takes the form of a restless search for the “essence” of the Gospel and of the “real” Jesus behind churchly accretions and prejudices, beginning with the Pauline. With many relatively uneducated Orthodox, it takes the form of regarding adherence to first-millennium ecclesiastical formulations as eo ipso sufficient for understanding the faith once delivered to the saints, and therefore as incompatible with equally great adherence to formulations developed elsewhere after the schism. With many educated Orthodox, it takes the form of sophisticated objections, basically philosophical in nature, to the particular developments thereby formulated. Yet those objections are themselves partly motivated by the broader, more basic fundamentalism, which is always on the lookout for ways to depict the post-schism developments of Catholicism as logically incompatible with the pre-schism developments accepted by both sides.
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.