I do wonder why people chose to identify with one denomination of Christianity over another. Mostly I am concerned with Dominic Crossan's denominational choice. I wonder why he decided to call himself a Catholic. Surely there are other denominations which more closely follow or resemble his view on Jesus. The Catholic take the gospels more literally than most other denominations of Christianity, and they back their claims up with a history that is non-existent, or lean a history in their favour when clearly it was not meant in that manner.
Surely Crossan does not support having only male authorities because Jesus chose men as his followers (Catechism 1577 - Part(p) 2 Section(s)2 Chapter(c) 3 Article(a) 6). Surely he doesn't agree with the Catholics when they say that "it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained" (Catechism 816 - p1s2c3a9 Paragraph3). Jesus did not, after all, think that one could only reach the Kingdom of God through a single establishment/building. Does Crossan agree that those who deliberately do not attend Sunday mass commit a grave sin (Catechism 2180-2181 p3s2c1a3) and thereby a mortal sin (catechism 1857 p3s1c1a8)? If not, then why does he call himself a Catholic? If you believe all of those things, then feel free to honestly call yourself a Catholic. If you do not honestly believe all of those things it would likely be best, to avoid confusion, if you correctly identified yourself under the correct denomination.
Most of the ideas that Crossan supports and believes about the historical Jesus, I also support. Most of these ideas however, do not line up with the catholic church's beliefs
No comments:
Post a Comment