While the man in the hat (not the funny one the pope wears), Bryan Cross, and I debate the extent and significance of liberalism within the Roman Catholic Church, the pile of links that warrant a perception that Rome is far from conservative — so why would a conservative Protestant go there, mainline Protestant may be another matter — mounts.
First, a word from the archbishop of Denver, Samuel Aquila, on how good the good news is (beware, this may be Nadia Bolz-Weber territory):
To Christians, I encourage you to remember, as Pope Francis reminded us in the aforementioned interview, that “Christmas is joy, religious joy, God’s joy, an inner joy of light and peace.” We must be witnesses of such joy, and we must contemplate the great mystery of God, who came to dwell among us.
“With Christ,” he writes in “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), “joy is constantly born anew.”
The Pope used the word joy in his letter more than 50 times, underlining the absolute centrality of joy in the life of a Christian. He invites Christians to “a renewed personal encounter with Jesus to Christ.” He urges us to listen intently to God’s voice in our hearts, and to experience the “quiet joy of his love.”
To non-Christians, I urge you to take another look at Christmas. Look at it again with fresh eyes. Look at what we celebrate: let the eyes of your souls go past the presents, the trees, the fat Santa and red-nosed Rudolph, and stop at the center of the manger. Listen to the everlasting message of love and peace, and you will know what Christmas is all about, the God who loves you eternally even if you do not wish to receive that love. It’s a message that benefits us all.
Then a couple of responses to Francis’ apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, that suggest conservative Presbyterians have room for concern. First an SSPXer’s letter to Pope Francis:
Evangelization thus takes on a salvific importance – it has a supernatural end, and this has always been understood by Catholics throughout the ages. The purpose of evangelization is primarily to save souls.
However, in Evangelii Gaudium, the impetus for Christian evangelization of other cultures for the purpose of eternal salvation is explained in terms of a “dialogue”, and the supernatural end (eternal life in heaven with God) seems replaced by a natural one. You write, “Interreligious dialogue is a necessary condition for peace in the world, and so it is a duty for Christian” (EG, 250). The obligation for Christians to evangelize is “peace in the world”, not the salvation of souls. This seems to substitute a worldly, naturalistic cause for evangelization for the more traditional supernatural one. Indeed, the two greatest issues Catholic evangelization has to respond to are said to be inclusion of the poor and world peace. (cf. 186, 217) It seems Your Holiness is suggesting that it is purely worldly concerns that the Gospel is here to address, not the salvation of men’s souls or the false religions that keep them from that salvation.
Then a brief retort from Peter Leithart, possibly a little payback to Stellman:
In the midst of many wonderful things in Francis I’s exhortation, there are some missteps. One of these comes towards the end in his pastoral advice concerning Islam. I don’t object to his exhortations to Christians to treat Muslims with dignity and love. He’s undoubtedly right that “Many [Muslims] also have a deep conviction that their life, in its entirety, is from God and for God. They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy towards those most in need.” Whether their lives are in fact for God, I have no doubt of their conviction that this is the case.
But the basis for his exhortation is mistaken, and seriously so.
Quoting Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, he says that “we must never forget that they ‘profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day.’” He adds, “The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings; Jesus and Mary receive profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old, men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services.”
On both counts, Francis’s statements are at odds with the New Testament.
Next, in an ironic twist, while the Jesuits who edit America have found the era of Pope Francis to be one where — how convenient! — the labels of conservative and liberal no longer apply, the Roman Catholics who oversee the Catholic Theological Society of America received a report about the need to make room for conservatives within the organization and at its annual and regional meetings.
First America on America (thanks to our charismatic correspondent):
Third, America understands the church as the body of Christ, not as the body politic. Liberal, conservative, moderate are words that describe factions in a polis, not members of a communion. It stands to reason, moreover, that America’s fundamental commitment precludes certain self-conceptions. Since the word of God is incoherent when it is separated from the church and its living teaching office, America could never envision itself as “the Loyal Opposition.” Nor do we understand the phrase “people of God” as a theological justification for setting one part of the body of Christ against another. The people of God are not a proletariat engaged in some perpetual conflict with a clerical bourgeoisie. It is obvious to us, moreover, that a preoccupation with episcopal action, whether it bears an ultramontane or a Marxist character, is nevertheless a form of clericalism. None of this is to say that America cannot bring a critical eye to ecclesiastical events; this is, in fact, our very purpose.
. . . Fifth, America’s fundamental commitment means that we view ideology as largely inimical to Christian discipleship. Revelation is humanity’s true story. Ideologies, which are alternative metanarratives, invariably involve an “other,” a conceptual scapegoat, some oppressor who must be overthrown by the oppressed. Only the Gospel’s radical call to peace and reconciliation justifies a radical politics. Catholic social teaching is not the Republican Party plus economic justice, nor is it the Democratic Party minus abortion rights. Yet neither is it some amalgamation of the two. Catholic social teaching is far more radical than our secular politics precisely because it is inspired by the Gospel, which is itself a radical call to discipleship, one that is subversive of every creaturely notion of power. There is more to Christian political witness than the tired, quadrennial debate about which presidential candidate represents the lesser of two evils.
Sixth, our fundamental commitment means that we are not beholden to any political party or any special interest. “America will aim,” wrote Father Wynne, “at becoming a representative exponent of Catholic thought and activity without bias or plea for special interest.” Admittedly, we do harbor one bias: a preferential option for the poor and vulnerable. “The poor,” however, “are not ‘special parties’ and they usually have no ‘special parties’ to speak for them,” wrote Father Davis in 1959. America believes that the work of social justice is a constitutive element of Christian discipleship. We also share with the Society of Jesus the conviction that “the faith that does justice is, inseparably, the faith that engages other traditions in dialogue, and the faith that evangelizes culture.”
Then the place of conservative theologians in CTSA:
A.Many CTSA sessions, both plenary and concurrent, include jokes and snide remarks about, or disrespectful references to, bishops, the Vatican, the magisterium, etc. These predictably elicit derisive laughter from a part of the audience.
B.Many CTSA members employ demeaning references. For example, the phrase“thinking Catholics” is sometimes used to mean liberals. The phrase “people whowould take us backwards” is sometimes used to mean conservatives.
C.Resolutions are a significant problem because an individual member can bring to the floor of the business meeting a divisive issue that not only consumes important time and energy but exacerbates the ideological differences that exist among theologians, typically leaving conservatives feeling not only marginalized but unwelcome. (CTSA members who have trouble understanding this as a problem might ask how they would feel if they were part of a professional society that passed resolutions criticizing a theologian they hold in high regard or endorsing views they reject.)
D.In recent decades, conservative theologians have only rarely been invited to be plenary speakers and respondents.
E.In CTSA elections, there is a general unwillingness of many members to vote for a conservative theologian. Scholarly credentials seem often outweighed by voters’partisan commitments.
F.Some conservative theologians have experienced the feeling that a number of other members “wish I wouldn’t come back” to the CTSA.
G.In sum, the self-conception of many members that the CTSA is open to all Catholic theologians is faulty and self-deceptive. As one of our members put it,the CTSA is a group of liberal theologians and “this permeates virtually everything.” Because the CTSA does not aspire to be a partisan group, both attitudes and practices will have to shift if the CTSA is to become the place where all perspectives within Catholic theology in North America are welcome.
And if outsiders believed the problem was only with academics and clergy exposed to higher criticism and inclusive theology, poll numbers on the church in the U.S. reveal matters that might keep Jason and the Callers away from claims of superiority:
American Catholics support same-sex marriage 60 – 31 percent, compared to the 56 – 36 percent support among all U.S. adults.
More devout Catholics, who attend religious services about once a week, support same- sex marriage 53 – 40 percent, while less observant Catholics support it 65 – 26 percent.
Catholic women support same-sex marriage 72 – 22 percent, while Catholic men support it 49 – 40 percent. Support ranges from 46 – 37 percent among Catholics over 65 years old to 64 – 27 percent among Catholics 18 to 49 years old.
Catholics like their new Pope: 36 percent have a “very favorable” opinion of him and 53 percent have a “favorable” opinion, with 4 percent “unfavorable.”
“American Catholics liked what they heard when Pope Francis said the Church should stop talking so much about issues like gay marriage, abortion and contraception,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
“Maybe they were just waiting for a Jesuit. Overwhelmingly, across the demographic board, Catholics – men and women, regular or not-so-regular church-goers, young and old – have a favorable opinion of Pope Francis.”
American Catholics support 60 – 30 percent the ordination of women priests. Those who attend religious services about once a week support women priests 52 – 38 percent, compared to 66 – 25 percent among those who attend services less frequently.
There is almost no gender gap.
Support for women priests grows with age, from 57 – 32 percent among Catholics 18 to 49 years old to 68 – 28 percent among those over 65 years old.
Catholic opinion on abortion is similar of the opinions of all American adults:
16 percent of Catholics say abortion should be legal in all cases, compared to 19 percent of all Americans;
36 percent of Catholics say abortion should be legal in most cases, compared to 34 percent of all Americans;
21 percent of Catholics say abortion should be illegal in most cases, compared to 23 percent of all Americans;
21 percent of Catholics say abortion should be illegal in all cases, compared to 16 percent of all Americans.
Finally, to round this out, some priests (even former Protestant ones) believe the church needs to recover the language of hell in its evangelistic efforts:
The most insidious cancer in the Christian church today is universalism and semi-universalism combined with indifferentism. Indifferentism is the lie that it doesn’t really matter what church or religion you belong to. Universalism is the lie that everyone will be saved because God is so merciful he will not send anyone to hell. Semi-universalism is the commonly held lie that there may be a hell, but there probably won’t be very many people there. All of these beliefs are clearly contrary to the plain words of Scripture.
Ralph writes clearly and concisely with abundant quotes from Scripture and the documents of the Church. He tells us what the New Evangelization is, answers the question “Why Bother?”, discusses the laity’s role, the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s power. He then goes on to outline the simple message of salvation: human beings are sinners separated from God from sin and they need salvation or they will go to hell.
Sorry folks. That’s the message, and the message is clear from Scripture and the unanimous teachings of the church from antiquity to the present day. Ralph goes on to advise how to share this message with joy and compassion–avoiding the “bull in a china shop” approach and avoiding any sense of being judgmental and un loving. There is no room for the Westboro Baptist approach, but plenty of room for a joyful, honest and firm proclamation of the faith.
Yikes!
Old Life 
It’s a matter of scale, maybe. Two decades ago I was a member of large, prestigious downtown PCUSA congregation in the southeast. In it were fundies, dispys (who used Swindoll books for Sunday School), feminists, lefties, cultural conservatives, traditionalists, and people who believed nothing in particular. Sound like the RC? Or we could think about Rome like a big religious mall with something for everyone in its 600 stores and shops. The Callers’ little unit (we’ll call it Bryan’s Secret) is looking for more customers. You may have a gift card for the mall but they only want you spending it at Bryan’s Secret. And please avert your eyes as you walk past the racier and tackier shops.
LikeLike
Bill Evans— “the church is not constituted, as some today curiously allege, by its confession… Rather, it is constituted by its spiritual UNION with the great Head of the church—Jesus Christ.”
That should cover any fundamentalist worries about “doctrine” or 5 points.
LikeLike
Of course, if pressed Bryan (at least) will attempt to defend every shop in the mall, including the one that sells Pope-on-a-Rope soap and my personal favorite Parts O’ Saints ‘R’ Us.
LikeLike
And if outsiders believed the problem was only with academics and clergy exposed to higher criticism and inclusive theology, poll numbers on the church in the U.S. reveal matters that might keep Jason and the Callers away from claims of superiority
Actually, all this supports the Called to Communion argument.
When Moses returns from the mountain, “the people” have already slipped back into their idol worship. But what is “Judaism”? Whatever its people think and do?
Of course not. So too, the structural problem with Protestant denominations in their rejection of magisterium is that Lutheranism or Calvinism or Christianity itself [!] is whatever its inhabitants say it is, no more no less.
But truth cannot be democratized. In the end, Catholicism’s tether to apostolic succession and magisterium is its defense against creeping liberalism, a defense that Protestant sects don’t enjoy. They have only schism.
[As for the liberalism of American catholics, it’s also ironic that the Puritans of the 1600s mutated into unitarians, and into today’s northeastern Harvard left-liberal establishment. There is indeed a dynamic here, that when the most devout turn, they do a 180. I suppose Salt Lake City will be America’s Gomorrah in another 100 years.]
LikeLike
Or: How can a church save itself from its intellectuals?
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/12/08/is-the-catholic-theological-society-of-america-left-leaning/
LikeLike
Watching a bad bowl game and what do I see? Lou Freakin’ Holtz pitching for the papists. I call desperation.
LikeLike
From National Review, the Mariology of Lou Holtz:
Back when Holtz was coaching the lads from South Bend, he and his team attended a night-before-the-big-game banquet with an archrival, whose chaplain was called upon to offer grace before meals. The enemy-team cleric went on at some length, asking the Lord to ensure that no one got hurt, that all would be good sportsmen, that everyone would become friends, punctuating his intentions with the antiphon, “Because we know, dear God, that You don’t care who wins tomorrow.” After the meal, Coach Holtz got up to make a few remarks, thanked the other side’s chaplain for an inspiring benediction, and said, “And it’s true: God doesn’t care who wins tomorrow. But His Mother does.”
LikeLike
Mikelmann
Posted December 27, 2013 at 8:15 pm | Permalink
From National Review, the Mariology of Lou Holtz:
Back when Holtz was coaching the lads from South Bend, he and his team attended a night-before-the-big-game banquet with an archrival, whose chaplain was called upon to offer grace before meals. The enemy-team cleric went on at some length, asking the Lord to ensure that no one got hurt, that all would be good sportsmen, that everyone would become friends, punctuating his intentions with the antiphon, “Because we know, dear God, that You don’t care who wins tomorrow.” After the meal, Coach Holtz got up to make a few remarks, thanked the other side’s chaplain for an inspiring benediction, and said, “And it’s true: God doesn’t care who wins tomorrow. But His Mother does.”
I never know if you guys here @ Called 2 Crabbiness types ever get the jokes. Notre Dame = The University of Notre Dame du Lac, Our Lady of the Lake.
A sterling bon mot.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – Or: How can a church save itself from its intellectuals?
Erik – Judging from those poll numbers it also needs to be saved from the men and women in the pews.
All of this stuff is fair game. Catholics don’t get to be judged on the basis of some theoretical church that we can’t all observe in time and space. “Catholicism’s tether to apostolic succession” is what is on trial, not what is conceded. If there is a “tether”, then let’s see some solid evidence in the church today.
The Pope supposedly has what is needed to clean all these problems up. So clean.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – In the end, Catholicism’s tether to apostolic succession and magisterium is its defense against creeping liberalism, a defense that Protestant sects don’t enjoy. They have only schism.
Erik – No, Protestants have Scripture as a defense against creeping liberalism. If they didn’t there would be no faithful Protestants left after 500 years. There are plenty left.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 27, 2013 at 10:02 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke – In the end, Catholicism’s tether to apostolic succession and magisterium is its defense against creeping liberalism, a defense that Protestant sects don’t enjoy. They have only schism.
Erik – No, Protestants have Scripture as a defense against creeping liberalism. If they didn’t there would be no faithful Protestants left after 500 years. There are plenty left.
“Protestantism” is an umbrella term. “Protestantism” doesn’t actually exist. There is the Catholic Church, and then there are the minor brands of Christianity.
You want to play the statistics game, Erik? Dude. You’re driving a Yugo. Better luck next time.
LikeLike
Tom, you’re not following the CTC argument. They claim that they have the mechanism to fix what ails Protestantism. So how do they have a church that is more liberal than most Protestant communions?
LikeLike
Tom, oh come on. Why not work in some positivity about Sarah Palin and David Barton too?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 27, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke – Or: How can a church save itself from its intellectuals?
Erik – Judging from those poll numbers it also needs to be saved from the men and women in the pews.
All of this stuff is fair game. Catholics don’t get to be judged on the basis of some theoretical church that we can’t all observe in time and space. “Catholicism’s tether to apostolic succession” is what is on trial, not what is conceded. If there is a “tether”, then let’s see some solid evidence in the church today.
The Pope supposedly has what is needed to clean all these problems up. So clean.
I’ve never enjoyed the line-by line, cut & paste format, but I think you’ve laid out our continuing conversation quite well here, and since I have WIP in one ear and the Boxing Day Test match in the other, let us rock:
Tom Van Dyke – Or: How can a church save itself from its intellectuals?
Erik – Judging from those poll numbers it also needs to be saved from the men and women in the pews.
All of this stuff is fair game.
Yes, it certainly is! See above, however.
Catholics don’t get to be judged on the basis of some theoretical church that we can’t all observe in time and space.
2 billion Catholics, 1 billion “Protestants,” the latter 1 billion lumped together–“not-catholic” as their only defining characteristic. They’re defined by what they’re not.
Sola scriptura, you will say. Fine, but some Protestants have the Eucharist, others do not. If there’s one doctrinal item that explodes any concept of “Protestantism” as a theology or as a “church,” I posit that the Eucharist trumps the Magisterium!
So I reckon I should just end here, for now. Oh, and
The Pope supposedly has what is needed to clean all these problems up. So clean.
Spot on. You might remember my original take hereabouts on the election of Pope Francis, that a non-European pope was necessary for the Catholic Church to distance itself from the child molestation scandal and the stench of the cover-up as well.
So far so good. He was only elected in March and it’s already in the rearview mirror. Who’s talking priest scandals? That’s so 2012. The polls say Francis’ approval rate among American catholics–who were indeed quite disenchanted with their church—is almost 90%.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/24/pope-francis-keeps-winning-fans-among-american-cat/
Now there’s your friggin’ miracle.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 27, 2013 at 10:20 pm | Permalink
Tom, you’re not following the CTC argument. They claim that they have the mechanism to fix what ails Protestantism. So how do they have a church that is more liberal than most Protestant communions?
No, I’m not following the CTC argument, DG. I’m only following your representation of their argument. Which is like a funhouse mirror, but I’m a fan of Darryl’s House of Fun. Them, not so much. they do seem a lot less crabby than you, though, and they also have some women among their commenters.
Just sayin’.
As for them having a more liberal church: As one of your more intrepid commenters just wrote, the stats you’ve been throwing out are only about America. As for American Presbyterian[ism], it’ll have lesbian bishops within 100 years.
I respect the Reformers, but there is nothing in their churches left to reform.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 27, 2013 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
Tom, oh come on. Why not work in some positivity about Sarah Palin and David Barton too?
You keep bottom-feeding, D. I don’t get it.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke: “Who’s talking priest scandals? That’s so 2012.”
sigdor3: Umm, what?
http://www.startribune.com/local/234605261.html
I don’t have kids, but if I did, the last place I’d think about communing is with the RC, and not because Protestant churches never have such abuse, but because there is something disturbingly evil and vilely hypocritical about a global institution practicing such systematic and widespread concealment of spiritual and civil crimes they explicitly oppose.
If Francis was looking to impress, addressing this institutional horror would have been a fine place to start. But then he would have had to spend more than a couple of sentences in Evangelii Gaudium discussing sin, and heaven forbid the church confronts people (and itself) with the wrath of the law. That’s so two millennium ago.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart,
In regard to those poll numbers on the beliefs and practices of American lay Catholics (I have to wonder, how is it that neither I, nor any Catholic whom I know, ever seems to be polled in these surveys?!), I wrote the following to you yesterday over at CTC:
I’m not sure why you think that the statistics you cite, as lamentable as they are, will cause Catholics who believe the Church’s claims about herself to turn their heads in any other ecclesial direction. Believe me, I have spent time in Catholic parishes with very poor, and even heretical, homilies and “dissenting” lay Catholics. Nothing that I heard or experienced in those parishes changed the official teachings of the Church one bit.
Even at the worst extremes in the Church, heretics do not change the objective fact that there *is* an identifiable orthodoxy for Catholics, because there is a *visible, divinely authorized teaching authority*, in the Pope and the Magisterium, to *define* that orthodoxy and to *authoritatively settle* disputes when they need to be settled.
In the 4th century, many, many Catholic bishops embraced Arianism. That fact, however, obviously did not make Arianism part of Catholic doctrine and dogma, and it also did not do *anything* to make Catholic doctrine and dogma any less *authoritative*.
Every self-identifying Catholic in my Archdiocese could be a heretic, and it would not change the objective Catholic faith. Nor would such a terrible predicament change my own submission to the objective Catholic faith, as defined and articulated by the Church’s teaching authority.
Every self-identified “Catholic” theologian and self-identified lay “Catholic” in North America could *claim* that women’s ordination is a discipline and not a settled matter of the Catholic faith– but the objective fact is that the CDF and the Pope spoke authoritatively on the subject. People can rebel against that fact, and they can even teach against it, sometimes, in the Church, as if it were somehow not the objective reality– but a Catholic who listens to the Church’s teaching authority will not be misled on the subject.
LikeLike
Tom, what, America doesn’t matter? So if the Roman Catholic church in the U.S. is not representative, then Clete, Jason, and Bryan are also completely unrepresentative. Who are you going to believe?
But then there’s Rome’s approval of certain parts of the U.S. church:
So I’m supposed to ignore the U.S. bishops?
LikeLike
Tom, just think about why you’ve been banned from posting on at least one of your previous blogs. You might get it then.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake, obviously those numbers won’t change your mind or Bryans. You are pietistic Roman Catholics, of the hotter logical sort. Nothing could open that steel trap.
But if Bryan were to run stories at CTC about the widespread heterodoxy and loose discipline in the Roman Catholic church, two things might happen:
1) Would be converts might not be so quick to run to Rome to escape Protestantism’s many opinions. For you see, the fix that Jason and the Callers says it has does not fix what someone frustrated with the OPC or PCA might face. Way more liberalism in RC circles than in conservative Presbyterian ones. So why make the switch? You say you have the truth. But that’s like your opinion man given the realities of your church and the lack of attention to that much vaulted philosophical and logical truth.
2) Jason and the Callers might give up with the posts about Rome’s superiority to Protestantism. If Rome is as much a shipwreck as the numbers for the U.S. suggest, then all of the breast beating about Rome’s majesty really do need to be potted down. In fact, if you guys would once in a while say “woe is me” rather than engaging in some kind of denominational triumphalism (like the kind that follows Keller and RedeemerNYC), I might sympathize and recognize you as a fellow traveler, that is, as someone who wants their own communion to be more faithful to the truths it claims. As it is, though, the conversion narratives at CTC are all about making Protestantism (and especially the Reformed) look inadequate. Looks to me like there is plenty of inadequacy to go round.
BTW, my theories make perfect sense too. I even have an ecclesiology that says churches err. You don’t. And so you have to live in denial. Worse, you can’t even hope for reform or for the church to get better. THIS is the church Christ founded. If it says white is black, you believe it.
LikeLike
I would take much more seriously a Romanist who expressed some embarrassment about Mariolatry, RC folk piety, Mother Angelica, Vatican wealth, third world syncretism, Mejugorje and the like, AND the abuse scandals. But the silence says “no big deal”.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart,
More and more Protestants, both the “confessionally Reformed” and others, are seeing the very real problems that exist in the Catholic Church (as I have seen and experienced myself personally!) and yet, they are also *still* seeing that there is a serious, qualitative difference between the visible, almost 2,000-year-long teaching authority of the Papacy and the Magisterium in the Catholic Church, and the 500-year-long human attempts at defining “orthodoxy,” via Sola Scriptura, of the various denominations of Protestantism. In the grace and mercy of God, Protestants do still retain many precious truths of the historic Christian faith, but from 189 A.D., St. Irenaeus calls out to all of you, Reformed and otherwise:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
LikeLike
Chortles weakly,
What about Mother Angelica? She’s a faithful servant of the Lord.
As for the other things that you mentioned, my girlfriend was born and raised a Catholic in the Third World, and yes, there are problems there and in the First World with the Church, but you seem to think that these problems are intrinsic to the Catholic faith itself. They are not. Abuses of many kinds can be found in all Christian communities. She and I are staying in the Church and working for *real* reform, instead of divorcing the Church and calling it a “Reformation,” as did Luther and Calvin.
LikeLike
DGHART,
You are right. When I converted a few years ago I was taken aback after learning of the considerable division and rank liberalism in the Church. Its definitely not advertized at Catholic Answers lol! I think all of your points in this post are more or less fair. The only thing I would take issue with thus far is your denial that the Church can be reformed. It truly can be reformed. We were moving in a very positive direction with B16. I’m afraid Francis might make shipwreck of his efforts. The trads only hope is that B16 let the “genie out of the.bottle” so to speak and that the movement can continue to gain momentum as it has over the last 10 years or so. That…. And Matt. 16!
Also, Lebron James with the flu van still out ball a 6 year old from Thailand. Just because the Church is sick doesn’t mean we still aren’t superior 😉
LikeLike
Sorry CL, the Irenaeus quote only suggests that I’m in the right place. It mentions no pope of Rome (bishops plural, just like in the Reformed churches), seems to place Paul and Peter on equal footing, and greatly magnifies the apostolic teaching. That we have in the confessional Reformed churches. That you lost when the papists abandoned the gospel at Trent, from which time Rome has only amped up and multiplied the man-made tradition.
LikeLike
Christopher and Kenloses, so you have 1500 years more history. That also means you have a lot more explaining to do. And it should also give pause to notions of reform. You don’t change the course of cruise ships very quickly. Just look at health care reform. You may think Washington D.C. is a bad analogy for the church. It is. The stakes are higher for “the church Christ founded.” You seem to think all the history gives you a mulligan. It actually makes your case even worse.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake, a typical CTC response. Don’t respond to the substance of what I said — especially the part about humility and winding down the polemics. Just double down on the early church (even though the church fathers weren’t popes).
LikeLike
CL, since you’re a fan of Mother Angelica I hope you got one of these cool watches which her network sells for Christmas:
http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Home+Page/JEWELRY/Watches/Man+s/
Catholic TV is almost charmingly bad, right down to Jason’s brown blazer and Reagan tie.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – There is the Catholic Church, and then there are the minor brands of Christianity.
Erik – You run into the same problem as Jeremy Tate and the Callers when they equate size with truth. Defend this notion logically.
If I look in your fridge will I only find Budweiser products and no microbrews? Not even Samuel Adams? Budweiser is bigger and older so it must be better?
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – 2 billion Catholics, 1 billion “Protestants,” the latter 1 billion lumped together–”not-catholic” as their only defining characteristic. They’re defined by what they’re not.
Erik – That’s not true. When a Protestant church is confessional or has a statement of faith they are affirmatively defining what they believe and (hopefully) justifying those beliefs scripturally. You will actually hear little or nothing about Catholicism in most Protestant churches today. Compare this to the Callers who appear to be obsessed with the alleged shortcomings of Protestantism. Granted, they are not a “church”.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – As for American Presbyterian[ism], it’ll have lesbian bishops within 100 years.
Erik – Presbyterians, by definition, do not have Bishops.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake – I’m not sure why you think that the statistics you cite, as lamentable as they are, will cause Catholics who believe the Church’s claims about herself to turn their heads in any other ecclesial direction.
Erik – Because they don’t want to be guilty of Fideism? One prominent convert’s wife has not converted because she finds these scandals to be inconsistent with a church that Jesus Christ himself (allegedly) founded.
LikeLike
D.G. – Christopher and Kenloses, so you have 1500 years more history.
Erik – Made possible mostly by Constantinianism.
Which raises the question of God allowed Constantinianism to wane as a protector of the Roman Catholic Church? Was he perhaps displeased with what it had become?
LikeLike
Erik, bishop and elder are the same thing. We just have a plurality, and none with more power than another (ignore Keller). Councils and general assemblies are made up of equals — presbyters. And, of course, “Presbyterians” have had female bishops (elders), but we don’t cover that fact up, we reform and, yes, break away from those who trash our confessions and standards.
LikeLike
Why are Catholics so unwilling to have their church defined by its fruit?
It’s like Marxists who defend Marxism by saying the right people just haven’t tried it yet.
Didn’t Jesus say “You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?” (Matthew 7:16)
Where is the “true church”? Where the gospel is purely preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and church discipline is practiced. Part of church discipline is the removal of ministers and officers from their positions when they sin greviously, not hiding the sin and shifting them around.
LikeLike
CW,
If my elders show up on Sunday wearing a dress and a pointy hat I’m outta there.
LikeLike
One of Bryan Cross’s taunts to Reformed Churches is “you don’t even have a bishop” (na-na-na-na-na).
LikeLike
Chortles’ local assembly has seven bishops. And they’re accountable (in doctrine and practice) to about 300 more in the presbytery.
LikeLike
Erik,
it is good to have a Church defined by its fruit. Do you enjoy hospitals? Your welcome. University? Your welcome. You know who feeds more hungry, educates more children and cares for more sick than any other institution on the planet? The fruit of the saints is abundant friend. Hows your little corner of the world? Showing any signs of promise?
LikeLike
Erik,
also, your gospel is not purely preached. It is demonic and downplays the role of works that is so ABUNDANTLY obvious from the scriptures and also the sacraments and the priest hood. I know that as confessional protestants ecclesiology is what makes you feel the most insecure. But there are many other things that should pull you home to Rome. Like a doctrine of grace that doesn’t turn God into a monster. Or historical continuity. Pedigree. Enough size to be relevant to the world. A much better and scripturally faithful doctrine of the atonement and justification. Sacraments that actually do something and have a purpose. Your ecclesiology isn’t authoritative. Your principles are inconsistent and can not even give a believer confidence in canon. Why in the world would anyone want to be reformed?!?!? What’s even being offered?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
As if it is matters, Des Moines has a Lutheran and Methodist hospital and there are lots of Protestant colleges & universities.
You are not helping your cause.
Whatever became of the Catholic elegance of a William F. Buckley? You & the Callers import some of the worst traits of fundamentalism into your new church.
LikeLike
DGHART,
If your sect does not have 1500 years of history behind it how then can it be apostolic? All that history doesn’t give us a mulligan… It gives us pedigree. It gives us precedent with which to judge our current state. How should the church militant behave in times of crises? Should we jump ship and start a new sect and then be proud of how pure we are? Or should we be like Athanasius and always return to the Church that enjoys AS?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Thanks for that commercial, which proves nothing. You’re even more annoying than Tom Van Dyke, which is an incredible accomplishment. Congratulations.
When starting from a simple, straightforward reading of Scripture, summarized in Catechisms and Confessions, which tie back to Scripture, why would I ever want to get involved in the 1,500 year old behemoth and mess that is Roman Catholicism. Jesus Christ died to save sinners and does not need all of the “help” that you and your church offer.
LikeLike
Kenneth, right, because Catholicism is the original neo-Calvinism. I wonder if that makes JJS throw up a little. But never mind that medicine and education came from the Greeks.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
If your church is the true church and if apostolic succession is valid, why do you theorize that God allowed the Reformation? Why did he allow circumstances to arise in which governments no longer protect your church’s perogatives? Was it a judgment of God? An historical accident? A temporary triumph of Satan over God? What? If God instituted your church, why would he not preserve it’s exclusive position in the world? And what of (old) Eastern Orthodoxy?
LikeLike
I owe Tom an apology for that. I think he is interacting here more constructively of late, although I remain mystified as to why he interacts here at all without a dog in the fight that I can identify. Anyway, sorry, Tom.
LikeLike
Erik,
the point was not that “there are catholic hospitals and universities”. Lol. Obviously. The point is that hospitals *in general* being available to the public and universities offering educations to those who are not royalty are social constructs that stem directly from the catholic church. You wanted to judge by fruit. OK great the RCC is the greatest force for good on the planet. What has your micro religion done in comparison? What are the fruits? Insignificant. A blip on history’s radar.
In the Roman Catholic Tradition we respect the sovereignty of God. I don’t judge his sovereign decisions. If he chooses to leave your sect to a reprobate heart then that is what He has decided. What does that have to do with anything?
LikeLike
ZRIM,
better crack open those history books one more time. Did the Greeks give education and medicine to *everyone* poor and rich alike? Hospitals for the poor? Universities for the public? Double check that and get back at me
LikeLike
Erik, on the fruit of RC’s. And the irony is that in the sixteenth c. they argued that Protestantism would unleash antinomianism. As if whiskey priests and mafia dons are evidence of justification as infusion of Christ’s righteousness.
LikeLike
Kenloses, do you enjoy the United States (a republican form of govt. that gave the Vatican until 1965 the willies)? You’re unwelcome, or at least you were while your pope was also a temporal prince. Can’t have loyalty to pope and congress.
LikeLike
Erik, oh good, Kenloses is off his meds again.
LikeLike
kenloses, except you don’t want the pedigree — crusades, inquisitions, Jewish ghettos, syllabi of errors, banned books. If you want to talk up hospitals, take credit for the reliquaries.
LikeLike
kenloses, universities stem from the Roman Catholic church? For real? Were Plato and Socrates Christian? Careful. It’s a loaded question for neo-Thomists.
LikeLike
Kenloses, what kind of public services did Roman Catholics render to Jews and Eastern Orthodox in 12th c. Jerusalem? How about to natives in Central America in the sixteenth c.? That’s quite a pedigree. Again, if you keep bringing up the history, you need to keep facing the music. Doesn’t mean Protestants didn’t commit sins. It does mean RC apologists don’t tell the truth.
LikeLike
Kenneth, so social services to all? And Catholicism is the original Protestant liberalism and social gospel. But the point is that nobody needs Christianity for any facet of the created order. Why are we supposed to thank you again? But if you want to strut the Catholic stuff, you’re doing with the wrong crowd–this is the one that yawns even when fellow Prots try to take credit for widespread literacy in the west (i.e. nobody needed the Reformation’s logocentricism to learn to read).
LikeLike
DGHART,
I enjoy the US just fine. I don’t worship the false God of liberty…. But I like it just fine.
I never denied the crusades, banned books or syllabi of errors. I’ll take it all and the treasury of merit too
Universities and hospitals as the social conventions that we know them as today come from Rome. You are welcome. If you want to judge by fruit lets roll. Your sect isn’t even in the conversation
LikeLike
Nice helmet, wrong sport, Kenneth
LikeLike
Erik,
I’m sorry. It appears that your reformed friends don’t actually like to judge a church by its fruit. You should explain to them what you meant by that. Apparenty
1. Long term social constructions set up by said religious community don’t count.
2.Neither does caring for the sick, feeding and housing the poor, educating small children etc.
perhaps what you meant to say instead of
“why don’t RCs judge a church by its fruit”
was
“why don’t RCs judge a church by the imputed righteousness of Christ”
hahaha
LikeLike
Kenneth,
If the “glories of Rome and all she has bequeathed to the world” is your apologetic, you need to go back to the drawing board. Rome was the only show in town, by force, for 1500 years. You have to ask what (better?) fruit might have arisen if this were not the case. Rome wasn’t too excited about the common man reading the Bible. What if this had been different? Who knows. It’s speculation.
LikeLike
Golf clap for Ken the Galatian — he comes clean on the real beef:
your gospel is not purely preached. It is demonic and downplays the role of works that is so ABUNDANTLY obvious from the scriptures and also the sacraments and the priest hood.
You’re welcome indeed. Everything else pales.
LikeLike
I’m willing to bet good money that Doug Sowers has converted and taken on the moniker of “Kenneth”. Why is this blog always on the verge of a walk on the wild side? Good grief.
LikeLike
The Refomed (Biblical) gospel “demonic”. How pre-Vatican II of Kenneth.
LikeLike
And Ken, proponent of all thing educational and civilizational — it’s “you’re welcome” not “your welcome”…you’re welcome.
LikeLike
Chortle,
LikeLike
kenloses, the funny thing is, your historical narrative would get you at best a C- at those European universities (I’ve heard of Paris, Bologna, Oxford, Aberdeen, but Rome? Georgia?). You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Erik,
did you not want to judge by fruit? What criteria were you looking for? Now you want to get into counter factuals and some sort of bizaar molinist account of who might have fed the poor and set up hospitals and universities if not the church. Why not just wipe the egg off your face and say “woops! Forgot your fruit rocks our world”
LikeLike
Erik, why doesn’t Kenloses ever mention Jesus?
LikeLike
Ken, Nick Burns begs to differ.
http://www.quickmeme.com/Nick-Burns-Computer-Guy/
LikeLike
Kenloses, if you want to talk about civilization, do you want to compare Canada to Mexico? Or Australia to Argentina? What happened to Roman Catholicism off the mainland?
LikeLike
For your reading pleasure: The Martini Pope:
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/065837621bedf51d45b91a5e75699ef5-174.html
Hans Küng had nothing but grand applause for Pope Francis’ latest document …
LikeLike
Who is the number 1 charitable institution in Canada Australia Mexico and Argentina?
LikeLike
Thanks for that, JB.
Ken, enjoy your Martini (pope).
LikeLike
Kenneth,
You’re free to bring up good fruit, just as we are free to bring up bad. It can all be weighed. A good apologetic takes it all into account, though, and this is what we demand that you and the Callers do. No glossy, rosy, come to Rome cause it’s all good apologetic allowed as long as we’re around.
The Callers have written exactly 1 piece (I would call it half a piece since it only mentions the scandal indirectly) on the priest sex abuse scandal. It was written by Jeremy Tate, hardly the biggest heavyweight there (although he’s a sincere guy). This sordid affair needs to be seriously wrestled with in a church led by an infallible leader. It’s faith shaking for even cradle Catholics, let alone Protestants who you are asking to convert.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
In case you haven’t noticed, liberals and secularists are all about setting up hospitals and helping the poor. Have you heard of the Welfare State? The British National Health System? Obamacare? Catholics have no monopoly on compassion, nor do theists in general. The real test of compassion, whether it be by theists or non-theists, is what they do with their own money, not other peoples’ money.
LikeLike
The main question that religion seeks to answer is, how does man get right with God. The Bible and Reformed theology offer a straightforward answer that can be summarized in a few short propositions. Catholicism offers a muddled answer with lots of convoluted overhead and an almost 3,000 Q&A Catechism. Catholics are beholden to their clerical class to (try) to sort it all out for them. Reformed Theology is an IPad. Catholic Theology is a card-reading mainframe from 1975.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 28, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink
Tom, what, America doesn’t matter? So if the Roman Catholic church in the U.S. is not representative, then Clete, Jason, and Bryan are also completely unrepresentative. Who are you going to believe?
But then there’s Rome’s approval of certain parts of the U.S. church:
To replace Cardinal Burke, Francis chose Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, an ideological moderate with a deep knowledge of the Vatican but also with pastoral experience. Father Reese noted that Cardinal Burke had been a leader of American bishops arguing that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be barred from receiving communion, while Cardinal Wuerl had taken an opposite tack.
So I’m supposed to ignore the U.S. bishops?
Well, you could ignore them and you wouldn’t miss much. There is no Catholic Church of America or CCUSA, just the magisterium.
D. G. Hart
Posted December 28, 2013 at 8:31 am | Permalink
Tom, just think about why you’ve been banned from posting on at least one of your previous blogs. You might get it then.
When you’re losing, you play dirty pool, Darryl. FTR, I’m proud of being lynched by those persons. Google my name and “thoughtcrime.” It was my effectiveness that made me a target. Some people just can’t play it straight.
________
Erik Charter
Posted December 28, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
I owe Tom an apology for that. I think he is interacting here more constructively of late, although I remain mystified as to why he interacts here at all without a dog in the fight that I can identify. Anyway, sorry, Tom.
OK, Erik. Accepted.
LikeLike
Chortle,
get at me when dogma has been changed. Until then its just more spin from the
Fox News ChannelOld Life blogLikeLike
Erik,
it doesn’t matter how simple your theology is. What matters is that its not biblical. Its not historical. Its a fiction
LikeLike
kenloses, you’re doing your impersonation of Bob again.
LikeLike
Tom, I’m giddy to be passively-aggressively hectored by you.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 28, 2013 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
Tom, I’m giddy to be passively-aggressively hectored by you.
Now you know how Bryan Cross feels. ;-P
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Feel free to go through The Westminster Standards and The Three Forms of Unity and show where the theology is not biblical.
Since when do Catholics care about theology being biblical? Jason, maybe, but others?
500 years is not historical? In 1,000 years when Catholicism is 2,500 years old and Reformed Churches are 1,500 years old you’re going to look pretty silly.
Whether something is “historical” or not doesn’t prove its truth or falsehood, anyway.
Roman Catholic history is a mixed bag, as we point out here every day.
Exactly what branch of Protestantism did you convert from?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart – hectors Bryan Cross because Cross is seeking to win converts from Hart’s church.
Tom Van Dyke – hectors D.G. Hart because ???
Last I checked we pretty much leave secularists and nominal Catholics alone.
LikeLike
Erik,
converted from LCMS.
LikeLike
Tom, Bryan Cross feels?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 28, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
Tom, Bryan Cross feels?
I guess so. He’s got that “peace of Christ” thing going. Just ask him.
Mebbe you should start signing off with “in the crabbiness of Calvin” or something, to balance things out.
LikeLike
Matthew 10:34
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 28, 2013 at 11:40 pm | Permalink
Matthew 10:34
Well, it’s good you stipulate to the crabbiness, but what makes you think you should be wielding the sword rather than be at the receiving end of it?
LikeLike
Kenneth: Universities and hospitals as the social conventions that we know them as today come from Rome.
While the universities arose in Europe, they definitely did not “come from Rome”. In fact, they arose in various locations around Europe perhaps in spite of what Rome was doing, not because of it.
And as for hospitals as “social conventions”, I think it’s funny that Roman Catholic “social teaching” goes back approximately to the late 1800’s. Prior to that, Roman treatment of the Jews, locking them up in ghettos for hundreds of years, was far more the “real substance” of “Roman Catholic social teaching”.
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted December 29, 2013 at 4:54 am | Permalink
Kenneth: Universities and hospitals as the social conventions that we know them as today come from Rome.
While the universities arose in Europe, they definitely did not “come from Rome”. In fact, they arose in various locations around Europe perhaps in spite of what Rome was doing, not because of it.
And as for hospitals as “social conventions”, I think it’s funny that Roman Catholic “social teaching” goes back approximately to the late 1800′s. Prior to that, Roman treatment of the Jews, locking them up in ghettos for hundreds of years, was far more the “real substance” of “Roman Catholic social teaching”.
Depends on who gets to claim the Council of Nicaea and St. Basil the Great.
http://www.reformedreflections.ca/articles/cf-(14)basil-the-great-(ca-330-379-.html
LikeLike
TvD,
Don’t you know Rome did nothing but evil in the world from 500 onwards (or whatever arbitrary date we’ll pick)? Anything good was despite their efforts and doctrine, duh.
History of Protestantism ain’t so hot, but I acknowledge they did some good things as well. I wonder if the sentiment can be returned.
LikeLike
Tom, I’ve admitted to and acknowledge being crabby. You think you are nice.
LikeLike
Clete, boo hoo. Old life has plenty more on Rome’s achievements than your meager “did some good things as well.”
The problem you face is twofold. The first is that Roman Catholicism was far more diverse than kenloses and most apologists admit. In other words, when the papacy began to control all of Roman Catholic life, say 1350, the church experienced real challenges (such as three popes). So Protestants can find lots of places for continuity with Western Christianity except that the papacy overreached. And even though you may not believe it, it is also why oldlife is not going to assert that the church did not exist between 500 and 1500. Protestants have a debt to Roman Catholicism because we are Western Christians. We wish Western Christianity had turned out differently. Roman curia saw fit that that didn’t happen (though lots of Roman Catholics around Europe — think Gallicans — were rooting against the papacy).
The second is the papacy. Your defense of Rome revolves around defending an institution that has created the very problems the apologists say that the papacy fixes. You cannot conceive of Roman Catholicism apart from the papacy and its infallibility and supremacy. And for that reason, your apologies have the ring of triumphalisim — ignoring all of the very problems that the papacy has created. Triumphalism is always wrong. History never happens that way.
Have a nice day.
LikeLike
Chortles weakly,
Thanks for the reply. You wrote:
“Sorry CL, the Irenaeus quote only suggests that I’m in the right place. It mentions no pope of Rome (bishops plural, just like in the Reformed churches), seems to place Paul and Peter on equal footing, and greatly magnifies the apostolic teaching. That we have in the confessional Reformed churches. That you lost when the papists abandoned the gospel at Trent, from which time Rome has only amped up and multiplied the man-made tradition.”
In a certain sense, I can see how, from the perspective of your denomination, you would not see the St. Irenaeus passages as necessarily referring to the Catholic Church. They definitely sounded Catholic to my “Reformed Baptist” ears though– but then, you might not consider R.B.’s to be “truly Reformed” anyway. Oh well! 🙂
St. Irenaeus does speak about identifying the apostolic tradition through the succession of bishops though. He doesn’t say, “If these bishops agree with your personal interpretation of the Bible, then they are apostolic!” If they don’t, then they’re not!” After all, Martin Luther was ultimately excommunicated *not* for challenging the selling of indulgences or other corruptions of Catholic practices (corruptions which had already been being fought in the Church for some time), but because he challenged the *official teaching* of the Church, based on *his personal interpretation* of the Bible.
Yes, I know that Reformed commentators strongly deny that they are Solo Scriptura-ists. I did too. I truly thought, when I was a Protestant, that there was/is a meaningful distinction between Solo and Sola Scriptura. I was wrong. I’ll explain some of *why* I was wrong by looking, again, at the first formal Protestant himself.
Martin Luther’s challenging of the Church’s teaching on justification came from *his personal reading and interpretation of* Romans, as opposed to the historic, Magisterial teaching on justification, which is based on the Church’s interpretation of the whole counsel of Scripture (including Romans) on justification.
Luther agreed with the Catholic Church on doctrine and teaching, *when* the Church agreed with *his personal interpretation* of the Bible– and yes, when the Church agreed with *his personal interpretation* of the Church Fathers (as, supposedly, agreeing with him on justification) as well.
In other words, to Luther, the Church was teaching “Biblical” and “apostolic” doctrine/teaching *when* it agreed with his understandings of the Bible and the Church Fathers. In that sense, Luther did give *some* thought and consideration to ecclesial authorities other than the Bible (i.e. the Fathers). In the end though, for Luther, it did come down to his personal interpretation of the Bible, against which the Church Fathers, and all of the Church’s historic teachings, period, based on Scripture and Tradition, were *all* measured– which makes Luther a Sola Scriptura-ist in word, but a Solo Scriptura-ist in deed. The “confessionally Reformed,” and “Reformed Baptists,” and mega-church evangelicals, today are all ultimately following in his footsteps.
Also, back to the St. Irenaeus passages– there are so many others from the early Church Fathers which are even more clearly “Catholic” than those. How many of the confessionally Reformed would feel comfortable affirming most of the passages from the Fathers at this one site alone (the Catholic Church affirms all of them)? http://www.churchfathers.org
LikeLike
Tom,
How does anyone know?
Heidelberg 60
Q. How are thou righteous before God?
A. Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.
Ken’s “Demonic” Protestant gospel, in other words.
LikeLike
Christopher L., if you are going to say stuff like this — “Martin Luther’s challenging of the Church’s teaching on justification came from *his personal reading and interpretation of* Romans, as opposed to the historic, Magisterial teaching on justification, which is based on the Church’s interpretation of the whole counsel of Scripture (including Romans) on justification.” — I have no reason to take you or JATC seriously.
First, this distorts history, as if every single theologian, from Chrysostom and Augustine to Aquinas and Scotus said the Bible said the same thing, or as if Rome had published an authorized commentary on the Bible that Luther was guilty of neglecting. This lack of historical awareness may have worked in the days of Pius X, but it won’t fly now.
Second, you entirely avoid the state of biblical studies within the RCC today. You have more Luthers and even Fosdicks than you know.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart,
I never said, or even implied, that all of the Fathers interpreted the Bible and Church Tradition in the same way on every issue. That does not mean that the Church has not had an historic teaching on justification that is simply *not* Luther’s interpretation of the Bible. Luther was going with his interpretation of the Bible, rather than that of the Church’s teaching authority, on justification. That is not a controversial assertion.
I also have not denied, anywhere that I have written, that there is liberalism in Catholic Biblical scholarly circles. Any well-informed Catholic knows that fact. What is the point that you are making from it?
LikeLike
Christopher,
The point of indicating that there are liberal Bible scholars that go undisciplined is to point out that your “mechanism” for discerning truth from opinion ain’t working.
And as far as justification, where can I find the official Magisterial statement on it prior to Trent??
Please point me to the infallible papal declaration or the conciliar statement. Thank you.
LikeLike
Robert,
would roman catholic biblical scholars who intentionally dissent from RCC fall under the category of AC1 or AC2?
LikeLike
D.G. and Erik,
I fully acknowledge the existence of serious sin and evil in the Catholic Church *throughout* the history of the Church– and yes, that includes up to the present day too with the abuse scandals. (Sexual abuse has personally touched my own life; I *do not* overlook or treat lightly this problem in the Church.)
The Churches has officially acknowledged the sin and evil in her history, in some detail, herself. You can see this acknowledgement directly, *in detail*, at the Vatican website. These two links provide a start: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html
Everyone who has access to the internet and to history books knows that some (and sometimes, even many!) of the Catholic Church’s members have led clearly wicked lives. Some of them have been downright abominable. This includes some Popes. Nothing in official Catholic teaching states, or even implies, otherwise.
Every faithful Catholic in America, alone, surely knows about the widespread existence of dissent from official Catholic teaching in the Church. We are not under any illusions about that fact. It drove me away from the Church, into practical atheism, and, eventually, into evangelical Protestantism, and then, into strongly anti-Catholic “Reformed Baptist” Protestantism.
When I returned to the Catholic Church, it was not with blinders on about the evil that exists within the Church. I knew about the Church’s (in Flannery O’Connor’s appropriate words to a friend!) “hair-raising history.” I knew about the sex abuse scandals. I knew, from personal experience, about the dissenting priests, nuns, and lay Catholics.
The Church has been striving, for several years now, to stop sexual abuse by errant clergy. The problem obviously still exists, to an extent, but when I have done research on cases of sexual abuse in *all* of the various expressions of Protestantism, it has quickly become apparent that this is not a specifically “Catholic” problem, though the Church is still definitely addressing it in her ranks.
The subject of doctrinally, theologically “dissenting” Catholics is, obviously, one which involves Church discipline. At certain points in her history, the Church’s teaching authority has been very, very severe with dissenters (even much too severe, at times, almost anyone now living would say, including me!). For the past fifty years or so, she has been much more willing to dialogue, sometimes, for long periods of time, with dissenters. She still does exercise Church discipline officially though. Huns Kung was stripped of his Church license to teach Catholic theology, as was Charles Curran for teaching against “Humanae Vitae” for decades at the Catholic University of America. A priest was recently excommunicated by Pope Francis for advocating women’s ordination in his own “church” which he claimed to be “Catholic.”
When and how the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” Church exercises discipline is a matter on which I may agree or disagree, in *certain* situations, *prudentially*, but it is not a matter which makes the Church the Church, or which “un-makes” the Church.
In this area, and in her official teachings involving Scripture and Tradtion, I submit to the Church’s authority. As a Catholic who believes the Church’s claims about herself, I don’t demand that she submit to me, whether on my preferences about the frequency and severity of church discipline, or on my personal Scriptural interpretations (which, anyway, are no longer my private, personal interpretations but are the Church’s historic interpretations, in the case of official Church teaching)– and I don’t say that, if she doesn’t agree with me, I will leave and pronounce her to be “preaching a false gospel” and to be a “false, non-apostolic church.”
That was Luther’s way, and it led to the Reformation. I spent several years on that side of the Tiber. There are many, many great Christian truths there, and I am grateful to have seriously benefited from my time as a Protestant– but the Reformation is not where one will find the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” which has held to apostolic succession, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, Marian devotion, and to final justification involving both faith and works, from the very early years of the Church. Some of the evidence for these claims can be found here, and there is more available from many other sources: http://www.churchfathers.org/
LikeLike
Robert,
The fact that liberal Biblical scholars exist with Catholic circles and are not disciplined according to your timetable does not mean that the Church has no mechanism for discerning truth from opinion. If the Church had no such mechanism, she would not be able to call ecumenical Councils which define doctrines and which make dogmatic statements. She also would not be able to produce Catechisms which are *applicable worldwide* as to what the Church *officially teaches*. The presence of dissent does not equate to the inability to distinguish truth from opinion. It simply attests to the reality of heresy.
About justification prior to Trent, the Church generally calls ecumenical Councils and/or issues Magisterial statements when an historical teaching of the Church is being seriously challenged to the extent that the Church deems such Councils and/or statements necessary.
Prior to Martin Luther, the historic Catholic teaching on justification had not been challenged in a very serious way, so at least to my knowledge, there was no need to call an ecumenical Council and/or issue an official Magisterial statement on the subject. (If any Catholic is aware of an official “pre-Trent” Magisterial statement on justification, please do correct me!) The Church’s teaching was/is based in Scripture and the broad consensus of the Church Fathers over the centuries, and it had been passed down through the Church, a la 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
The Arian heresy was dealt with via a Council which formally defined the doctrine of the Trinity. However, that fact does not at all mean that the Trinity was not taught by the Church *before* that particular Council!
In a similar vein, the Church’s teaching on justification (i.e. initial justification via infant baptism, and progressive and final justification via faith in Christ alone, and through the obedience to God resulting *from* that faith in Christ *alone*!), is a teaching that was formally defined, in response to Martin Luther, at the Council of Trent. That fact does not mean that, *prior* to the Council, the Church did not have an historic teaching on justification.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake, you mischaracterize Luther seriously. The pope barely gave Luther a chance and he’d have been dead like Wycliffe and Hus if not for his prince and even the emperor. While you’re bristling at Luther’s way, why not take a critical view of the papal way (which would have to include the unflattering reality of three popes at the same time in the late 14th century, only to be bailed out by councils (which popes thereafter would not reconvene because of the threat to their power).
There is a reason why Aquinas wrote that the bad side of monarchy was the worst form of government — it resulted in tyranny. And the fact that you cannot conceive of Christianity apart from the Bishop of Rome shows how tyrannical the papacy has been.
BTW, we confess “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” church. We don’t confess “one holy, Roman, catholic, and apostolic” church.
For all of your admission of errors, you haven’t stared the greatest error in the face — attributing supremacy and infallibility to one bishop. Scripture does not bear witness to this, nor do the early church fathers.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake, this is development in reverse. The church can take a position today and say it has always believed this. This is bogus history and the fact that you ask for someone to correct you shows you don’t know.
You cannot blame people for rules that don’t exist. Luther’s call was to teach the Bible, not to teach what the Church taught. He was doing precisely what the director of his order and his prince wanted him to do. Then the pope happened.
Give up the pope and liberate God’s people!
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 29, 2013 at 8:36 am | Permalink
Tom,
How does anyone know?
Heidelberg 60
Q. How are thou righteous before God?
A. Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.
Ken’s “Demonic” Protestant gospel, in other words.
I never quite understand this “Confessions” business, Erik. Written by men, with a claim that they are sola scriptura. But they called the pope the antichrist, which isn’t in the Bible [except for a stretch] then took it out. By what authority? The claim the Holy Spirit is involved is sophistically put, not that He/She/It inspired the various confessions, but only the Bible, which the confessions claim to be a direct representation.
But these actions are vulnerable to the same charges you make about the magisterium, of being merely the work of fallible men, or to the Catholic countercharge that you’re still doing theology, that the scriptures mean only what you say they mean, no more or less.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted December 29, 2013 at 6:46 am | Permalink
TvD,
Don’t you know Rome did nothing but evil in the world from 500 onwards (or whatever arbitrary date we’ll pick)? Anything good was despite their efforts and doctrine, duh.
History of Protestantism ain’t so hot, but I acknowledge they did some good things as well. I wonder if the sentiment can be returned.
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2013 at 7:17 am | Permalink
Clete, boo hoo. Old life has plenty more on Rome’s achievements than your meager “did some good things as well.”
The problem you face is twofold. The first is that Roman Catholicism was far more diverse than kenloses and most apologists admit. In other words, when the papacy began to control all of Roman Catholic life, say 1350, the church experienced real challenges (such as three popes). So Protestants can find lots of places for continuity with Western Christianity except that the papacy overreached. And even though you may not believe it, it is also why oldlife is not going to assert that the church did not exist between 500 and 1500. Protestants have a debt to Roman Catholicism because we are Western Christians. We wish Western Christianity had turned out differently. Roman curia saw fit that that didn’t happen (though lots of Roman Catholics around Europe — think Gallicans — were rooting against the papacy).
The second is the papacy. Your defense of Rome revolves around defending an institution that has created the very problems the apologists say that the papacy fixes. You cannot conceive of Roman Catholicism apart from the papacy and its infallibility and supremacy. And for that reason, your apologies have the ring of triumphalisim — ignoring all of the very problems that the papacy has created. Triumphalism is always wrong. History never happens that way.
Have a nice day.
Mr. van Damme, I seldom see an attempt at a coherent Catholic or Protestant timeline hereabouts. Certainly the writers here at Old Life have been all over the map as to when the [false] Catholic Church begins, or where the [true] Protestant “church” was in all those years between the apostles and Martin Luther [or Hus, whathaveyou].
For instance, Mr. Bugay has not returned to tell us whether the Catholic Church gets credit for hospitals and schools vis-a-vis the Council of Nicaea, or if the Catholic Church commences at some later date. Such is the fate of most refudiations like this.
________________
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2013 at 7:01 am | Permalink
Tom, I’ve admitted to and acknowledge being crabby. You think you are nice.
Here at Called 2 Crabbiness, that’s a relative term. But if Erik can claim Matthew 10:34 as not just his sword but his shield, yah, I’m nice as hell, considering. It’s the truth that hurts, not me. I’m quite the pluralist when it comes to belief, but the facts themselves have to be kept straight.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Why is it that you trust Luther to interpret the bible but you don’t trust other men that God would have be pastors of The Church that Jesus authored?
What is your mechanism for knowing if all you have is an fallible teacher? Fallible means that you can’t know with certainty the things belonging to faith. It would seem that you’d want someone who can guarantee the true religion.
Susan
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke December 29, 2013 at 6:18 am
Depends on who gets to claim the Council of Nicaea and St. Basil the Great.
Tom Van Dyke December 29, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Tom, your boast just goes to show that you don’t get out much. Here’s a timeline of the ancient church and how Rome fits into it all:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-church-authority-as-harmful-impulse.html
Of course I deny that these represent “Roman Catholicism”. Rome was barely represented at this council, and Basil was from the east.
Rome’s whole history has been to count for its own the blessings that Christ gives. It’s thievery.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme December 29, 2013 at 6:46 am
[Mockingly]: TvD, Don’t you know Rome did nothing but evil in the world from 500 onwards (or whatever arbitrary date we’ll pick)? Anything good was despite their efforts and doctrine, duh.
Here’s how I’ve addressed this in the past. See also the link in my post to Tom just above this one.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/answers-for-dozie.html
LikeLike
Susan, briefly (not only because of an afternoon service at the catholic reformed church we attends),
Luther was preceded by Erasmus’s Greek translation of the Bible. No Bible, no Luther. Yes, that’s right, “Christ’s Church” suppressed God’s Word.
Which is also why we don’t trust “those other men that are supposed to be pastors of the Church Jesus supposedly authored”.
Fallible teacher? The Holy Spirit is fallible? Yes, there is disagreement among SS folks, never mind the “Bible And” bunch (Romanism, Mormonism etc.), but ultimately God leads his people through his Word. At bottom that is where the authority and power of the church, preaching, sacraments and discipline resides.
Ps. 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
And mega props for getting Thomas the Troll to ditch his ugly avatar. He finally realized those glasses were too much even for crabby people.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“The pope barely gave Luther a chance ”
By giving him a chance, do you mean accepting his doctrines?
“Luther’s call was to teach the Bible”
His interpretation.
“Although Luther initially appears to have favored the view that all individuals could and should read the Bible in the vernacular, and base their theology directly upon that reading, he subsequently became somewhat skeptical concerning the ability of Herr Omnes to interpret Scripture, not least as a result of the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525, which seemed to him to rest upon a most distressing misreading and misapplication of Scripture, fostered and encouraged by Anabaptist radicals with a clear political agenda.
A study of the school curricula in Lutheran towns makes the importance of this point clear. The Schulordnungen of the Duchy of Württemberg (1559) make provision for the New Testament to be studied only by the most able students in their final years – and even then, the New Testament is to be studied directly only in the original Greek, or Latin translation. Less able students are required to study Luther’s Smaller Catechism of 1529 instead, which provides such readers with a theologically reliable and sanitized prism through which the New Testament may be read and understood correctly – that is, in a Lutheran manner. As a result, direct engagement with the scriptural text is reserved for scholars; others must approach Scripture through the “filter” of the catechism, which provided a framework within which Scripture could be interpreted. There is thus a curious twist to the Reformation sola scriptura principle, in that the interpretation of Scripture was effectively restricted to a limited group of people, rather than the body of faithful believers as a whole. The direct engagement with the original text was reserved for those with the necessary linguistic abilities – and in this respect, the Reformation followed both Erasmus and medieval scholasticism in declining to allow the masses to interpret Scripture for themselves.”
Alister McGrath – Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation
LikeLike
Susan: What do you know “infallibly”?
LikeLike
Thanks for your sort-of reply, John. Can you just answer the question instead of pointing behind a curtain [link]? Thx.
See, polemics are not affirmative arguments. You seem to be saying that Catholicism cannot claim the Council of Nicaea. If it cannot, you and Cletus, etc. are simply not talking of the same things, and this whole grenade toss is even more useless than it first appears.
If Catholicism can claim Nicaea, you own an acknowledgement of the original point that it can claim the proliferation of hospitals in the Western world. If it cannot, you need to specify when the “Roman” church you attack becomes a separate entity from Nicaea.
These are formal objections–I just want you to get your story straight before considering it. At the moment it’s not quite coherent.
[As for Richard John Neuhaus writing he’s OK with “Roman” Catholic, he does not speak for the Church on this matter*. I’m afraid I find this technique of building an entire thesis on a single factoid, a single person’s opinion or a single Bible verse to be quite unproductive, potentially misleading if not invalid.]
___________
*In English, the term “Roman” Catholic dates back only to the 1600s, as a pejorative used by Protestants to diminish the Catholic Church’s legitimacy.
LikeLike
John,
This is pretty simple – can you name one good thing Rome was responsible for from whatever date you think is appropriate? If you can, great. If not, it’s weird. Bill Gates is an atheist. His foundation is close to eradicating malaria. That’s good.
LikeLike
Christopher – The problem obviously still exists, to an extent, but when I have done research on cases of sexual abuse in *all* of the various expressions of Protestantism, it has quickly become apparent that this is not a specifically “Catholic” problem, though the Church is still definitely addressing it in her ranks.
Erik – What appears to be unique to Catholicism, however, is the hiding abuse and shifting clergy from place to place once it happens. I could be wrong, but generally it seems when Protestant clergy are caught in this type of thing they are done.
What is it that is distinctive about Catholicism that facilitates this?
LikeLike
DGHART,
Why Luther and Calvin? These guys scholarship is so completely eclipsed by men like Jerome and Aquinas. Thomisms teaching on election and grace is much more complete than Calvins crappy hack job. Jerome had a better grip on sacred scripture that Luther for sure. Why dint these men get to be your sola scriptura heroes?
LikeLike
Christopher – A priest was recently excommunicated by Pope Francis for advocating women’s ordination in his own “church” which he claimed to be “Catholic.”
Erik – Was the issue his teaching or his independence from the hierarchy?
Don’t take this wrong, but a lower-level mobster can probably have his own idiosyncratic predilections as long as he keeps paying tribute up the chain of command. “He’s a good earner”, as Tony Soprano would say.
LikeLike
Christopher – As a Catholic who believes the Church’s claims about herself, I don’t demand that she submit to me, whether on my preferences about the frequency and severity of church discipline, or on my personal Scriptural interpretations (which, anyway, are no longer my private, personal interpretations but are the Church’s historic interpretations, in the case of official Church teaching)– and I don’t say that, if she doesn’t agree with me, I will leave and pronounce her to be “preaching a false gospel” and to be a “false, non-apostolic church.”
Erik – So you’re all in no matter what they do. They rely on people just like you. You’ll never leave so they can serve up whatever they want and you’ll accept it.
Legal bills in the hundreds of millions of dollars for the scandal. No problem, Christopher will pay, he has no choice.
See a problem?
LikeLike
Christoper – Prior to Martin Luther, the historic Catholic teaching on justification had not been challenged in a very serious way, so at least to my knowledge, there was no need to call an ecumenical Council and/or issue an official Magisterial statement on the subject.
Erik – Might that not be the consequence of not giving people access to the Bible?
LikeLike
Tom – But these actions are vulnerable to the same charges you make about the magisterium, of being merely the work of fallible men, or to the Catholic countercharge that you’re still doing theology, that the scriptures mean only what you say they mean, no more or less.
Erik – Exactly. You’re a smart guy so you see it.
Note that we don’t do what Christopher has done and just punt and say:
(1) Lots of people interpret Scripture
(2) They disagree
(3) We need an infallible interpreter
(4) The Pope claims to be an infallible interpreter
(5) I’ll just submit to the Pope. Problem solved.
Along with Confessions come Scripture references and if you care, you look at the two hand-in-hand. Then you’re either not convinced, partially convinced, or wholly convinced.
If you’re not convinced, you keep looking or just give up on religion.
If you’re partially convinced you either keep looking or join a Reformed church with some reservations.
If you’re wholly convinced you join a Reformed church with no reservations.
We’re modern men and this is the reality of the modern world. No Pope to resolve the tension.
If you just sit on the sidelines, though, you pretty well know what you are going to get. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
LikeLike
Eric: What is it that is distinctive about Catholicism that facilitates this?
Clericalism. The priesthood must be defended at all costs. Laity be damned.
LikeLike
Erik,
even if the doctrine of justification had not been seriously challenged your theology is one of the weakest and least biblical of all available options. Again, why Luther and Calvin? Those guys suck. Thomas, Jerome, Augustine…. All far better options.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke December 29, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Thanks for your sort-of reply, John. Can you just answer the question instead of pointing behind a curtain [link]? Thx.
I did answer the question. One of the problems with discussions of this type is the shorthand, sniping, and quips that go back and forth, before anyone really defines terms.
See, polemics are not affirmative arguments.
I challenged your use of the term “Catholic Church”. It is vague and equivocal. Trying to win arguments through equivocation is not affermative argumentation either.
I certainly grant that “the church” was a doer of good things, and I certainly grant that “the church” considered it to be “the Catholic church”.
However, what I don’t grant is your attempt to co-opt this term for the organization to which you belong.
You seem to be saying that Catholicism cannot claim the Council of Nicaea.
No, I’m saying that what you call “Catholicism” is different from the Roman Catholic Church that you claim today as “Catholicism”.
If it cannot, you and Cletus, etc. are simply not talking of the same things, and this whole grenade toss is even more useless than it first appears.
I agree — and there is a lot of “grenade tossing” from this side too. Which I do not find to be helpful, given that such basic terms as “catholic church” have not been defined here. And you are, in your own way, contributing to the confusion by asking for simple one-word responses to very complex questions.
If Catholicism can claim Nicaea, you own an acknowledgement of the original point that it can claim the proliferation of hospitals in the Western world.
See, you’re continuing to throw out an equivocal term, because “catholic” meant one thing to the Reformed believers here — the “Catholicism” of the year 325 is different from the “Catholic church” of Augustine’s day, of the church after the “Great Schism” (of the fifth century), and is different from the “Catholic Church” after the 1054 split.
This type of qualification is absolutely necessary if we are to have a decent discussion.
If it cannot, you need to specify when the “Roman” church you attack becomes a separate entity from Nicaea.
You said that I have not answered the question, that I have hidden behind a link. But the entire purpose of that link, to which you seem to object, is to give you the response to specify what “Rome” and “Roman” mean and do for the church.
These are formal objections–I just want you to get your story straight before considering it. At the moment it’s not quite coherent.
Your contribution to the incoherence has been profound.
[As for Richard John Neuhaus writing he’s OK with “Roman” Catholic, he does not speak for the Church on this matter*. I’m afraid I find this technique of building an entire thesis on a single factoid, a single person’s opinion or a single Bible verse to be quite unproductive, potentially misleading if not invalid.]
Here is Pope Ratzinger on the topic (“Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica in “God’s Word” — republished 2005):
So you see, I don’t rely on Neuhaus in using this term. Ratzinger seems also willing to give credit to the pejorative.
If you’re interested, I have a whole series of articles (links) that say specifically why I believe Ratzinger’s concept of “apostolic succession” can be and needs to be rejected.
Are you interested in “affirmative arguments”? Or are you just blowing smoke?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
In case you forgot, we’re Augustinians around here.
LikeLike
Other than some of the younger guys, most of these conversions to Rome from Reformed theology are the result of an existential crisis experienced by these men. For whatever reason they long for affirmation, long to be a part of a big group, need to have history on their side, and need visible glory and Reformed theology provided none of that. It’s unfortunate they left, but maybe it’s better than if they had stayed and decided it was their calling to transform the city. Both maladies are sides of the same coin.
Reformed churches are like leaven — or maybe black mold – depending on your perspective. We’re quiet, but potent.
LikeLike
Erik and Dan,
another difference is a large Church that is relevant on a global scale. Your child is statistically more likely to be abused by a public school teacher than a RC priest…. Yet the Church is bigger story. No one really cares if some OPC “pastor” molested children and covered it up. No one.even knows who the OPC is. Look up any study on child abuse within clergy and there is absolutely NO difference between catholic clergy and any other religious affilliation
LikeLike
Robert,
“In case you forgot, we’re Augustinians around here.”
Except when you’re not.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I know. I know. Hopefully you didn’t steal your daughter’s pom-poms on Christmas morning to take along to mass today.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme December 29, 2013 at 4:54 pm
John,
This is pretty simple – can you name one good thing Rome was responsible for from whatever date you think is appropriate? If you can, great. If not, it’s weird. Bill Gates is an atheist. His foundation is close to eradicating malaria. That’s good.
If I recall, “Pope Leo” made some positive contributions to the definition of Chalcedon.
But honestly, “Rome” (used to characterize the official church located in that city, along with the hierarchy that it claims for its own — and minus those churches that broke off in the “Great Schism” of the fifth century, in contradiction to those churches located in the eastern part of the empire which resisted Roman claims and later became the “Orthdox” church after 1054) — honestly, other than some government administration during the centuries after the imperial government of Rome fell, no, they haven’t done anything close to “eradicating malaria”. And that is a poor comment on 18 centuries of “Rome”, in comparison with an officially atheistic body.
LikeLike
Tom,
Matthew 10:34 is in response to Bryan’s “In the Peace of Christ”. It’s a qualified peace. I know you tend toward universalism, but that’s tough to defend Biblically. With that, even Bryan would agree.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 29, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
Tom – But these actions are vulnerable to the same charges you make about the magisterium, of being merely the work of fallible men, or to the Catholic countercharge that you’re still doing theology, that the scriptures mean only what you say they mean, no more or less.
Erik – Exactly. You’re a smart guy so you see it.
Note that we don’t do what Christopher has done and just punt and say:
(1) Lots of people interpret Scripture
(2) They disagree
(3) We need an infallible interpreter
(4) The Pope claims to be an infallible interpreter
(5) I’ll just submit to the Pope. Problem solved.
Except you’re eliding the Catholic Church’s [specifically Thiomas More’s] argument, that the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium. “I will always be with you.”
Now, I’m aware of all your objections, but–speaking as a matter of formal argument– the Catholic Church’s argument is coherent.
Along with Confessions come Scripture references and if you care, you look at the two hand-in-hand. Then you’re either not convinced, partially convinced, or wholly convinced.
If you’re not convinced, you keep looking or just give up on religion.
Well, I have looked at the confessions and their claims to being sola scriptura, not theology. On a formal level, that doesn’t seem to hold up. Again, I’m obliged to repeat my reservations:
If you’re partially convinced you either keep looking or join a Reformed church with some reservations.
If you’re wholly convinced you join a Reformed church with no reservations.
Then you stipulate that there’s no difference between accepting the Reformed confessions or accepting the authority of the Magisterium. I believe that’s the Catholic counterargument to your position. The Catholic position claims the sanction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, whereas the confessions seem to merely be propositions [that may be altered, or accepted or rejected depending on the denomination depending on time and place].
We’re modern men and this is the reality of the modern world. No Pope to resolve the tension.
If you just sit on the sidelines, though, you pretty well know what you are going to get. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I don’t endorse modernity. In fact, some say the Reformation started us on that road to perdition.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/004-natural-law-and-a-nihilistic-culture-28
LikeLike
You may thing I’m sh***ing you when I cite an existential crisis, but Bryan Cross says himself that it was questions he could not answer from Mormons that spurred his conversion. Really? He couldn’t go to the Westminster Standards and Scripture to form an argument against people who believe that Angels gave Joseph Smith tablets in the 19th century and some day we are going to all be Gods?
And he thought the Pope and a suspect historical timeline involving apostolic succession was going to remedy his crisis? If so, I give him another 5 years until the next crisis.
The problem, though, is now he has gone and gotten a Ph.D. in philosophy and is on a tenure-track position at a Catholic college. He’s making his living off of the system, just like the Pope, the priests, the monks, the nuns, etc. How can he turn back? If he stops believing he’ll probably have to just play along until retirement. He’s getting too old to start over again.
Maybe this is why there is so much liberalism in the Catholic Church. Lots of people who were “born Catholic”, identify with the church, have family ties there, and it would be too much of a hassle to leave.
Way more baggage than standing on the Scriptures and being Reformed.
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted December 29, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke December 29, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Thanks for your sort-of reply, John. Can you just answer the question instead of pointing behind a curtain [link]? Thx.
I did answer the question. One of the problems with discussions of this type is the shorthand, sniping, and quips that go back and forth, before anyone really defines terms.
See, polemics are not affirmative arguments.
I challenged your use of the term “Catholic Church”. It is vague and equivocal. Trying to win arguments through equivocation is not affermative argumentation either.
I certainly grant that “the church” was a doer of good things, and I certainly grant that “the church” considered it to be “the Catholic church”.
However, what I don’t grant is your attempt to co-opt this term for the organization to which you belong.
You seem to be saying that Catholicism cannot claim the Council of Nicaea.
No, I’m saying that what you call “Catholicism” is different from the Roman Catholic Church that you claim today as “Catholicism”.
If it cannot, you and Cletus, etc. are simply not talking of the same things, and this whole grenade toss is even more useless than it first appears.
I agree — and there is a lot of “grenade tossing” from this side too. Which I do not find to be helpful, given that such basic terms as “catholic church” have not been defined here. And you are, in your own way, contributing to the confusion by asking for simple one-word responses to very complex questions.
If Catholicism can claim Nicaea, you own an acknowledgement of the original point that it can claim the proliferation of hospitals in the Western world.
See, you’re continuing to throw out an equivocal term, because “catholic” meant one thing to the Reformed believers here — the “Catholicism” of the year 325 is different from the “Catholic church” of Augustine’s day, of the church after the “Great Schism” (of the fifth century), and is different from the “Catholic Church” after the 1054 split.
This type of qualification is absolutely necessary if we are to have a decent discussion.
If it cannot, you need to specify when the “Roman” church you attack becomes a separate entity from Nicaea.
You said that I have not answered the question, that I have hidden behind a link. But the entire purpose of that link, to which you seem to object, is to give you the response to specify what “Rome” and “Roman” mean and do for the church.
These are formal objections–I just want you to get your story straight before considering it. At the moment it’s not quite coherent.
Your contribution to the incoherence has been profound.
[As for Richard John Neuhaus writing he’s OK with “Roman” Catholic, he does not speak for the Church on this matter*. I’m afraid I find this technique of building an entire thesis on a single factoid, a single person’s opinion or a single Bible verse to be quite unproductive, potentially misleading if not invalid.]
Here is Pope Ratzinger on the topic (“Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica in “God’s Word” — republished 2005):
By saying “Catholic”, it differentiates itself from a Christianity of Scripture alone and replaces this with the confession of the authority of the living word, that is, the office of apostolic succession. By saying “Roman”, it lends the office a firm direction, centered on the office of the keys and fo the successor of Peter in the city soaked with the blood fo two apostles [and he conveniently forgets all the other blood that city was soaked in, as given in my link, to which you also object]. Finally, by bringing the two terms together and saying “Roman Catholic”, it expresses that a dialectic of primacy and episcopacy, comprehending a wealth of relationhips in which one cannot exist without the other (pg 38).
So you see, I don’t rely on Neuhaus in using this term. Ratzinger seems also willing to give credit to the pejorative.
If you’re interested, I have a whole series of articles (links) that say specifically why I believe Ratzinger’s concept of “apostolic succession” can be and needs to be rejected.
Are you interested in “affirmative arguments”? Or are you just blowing smoke?
You have the floor. But links [to your other pieces] are footnotes. Footnotes are not formal arguments.
You either trace your “apostolic” church through or around the Catholic Church. Pick one. I shall read. So far “Catholic Church”* is a catchall for bad stuff that happened in some indeterminate period and place.
[Y’all seem to like the Eastern Orthodox. Perhaps they’re the “true” church, then, not you.]
______
*Using then-Cardinal Ratzinger [not yet pope] was a strong argument. I’m not yet ready to stipulate “Roman” however, because it’s part of your bag of rhetorical tactics to win the discussion by using terms as weapons, not tools. “Catholic Church” is entirely functional: we both plainly know what it means. For the moment, I’ll use the non-prejudicial term, one that is entirely accurate and valid. “Roman” is descriptive, not definitive, a formal language distinction that I’m sure you appreciate.]
LikeLike
Tom – Now, I’m aware of all your objections, but–speaking as a matter of formal argument– the Catholic Church’s argument is coherent.
Erik – Possibly coherent, IF you buy into the idea of apostolic succession in time and space (even if it involves Borgia Popes, Three Popes at the same time, adulterous popes, etc). And this also involves buying into the primacy of Peter as well.
It’s fascinating to see people look to time & space and history as a solution to existential, spiritual problems.
It’s as if my wife of 21 years tells me she doesn’t love me anymore and I try to go find a love letter from when we were dating or her signature on our marriage license to convince myself it’s not true.
Add to that the history of Israel which shows that physical succession is apparently not terribly high on God’s list of how he bestows grace and maintains truth. If we are looking for physical succession and antiquity we might want to all consider converting to Judaism. They have the oldest pedigree around.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 29, 2013 at 5:41 pm | Permalink
You may thing I’m sh***ing you when I cite an existential crisis, but Bryan Cross says himself that it was questions he could not answer from Mormons that spurred his conversion. Really? He couldn’t go to the Westminster Standards and Scripture to form an argument against people who believe that Angels gave Joseph Smith tablets in the 19th century and some day we are going to all be Gods?
And he thought the Pope and a suspect historical timeline involving apostolic succession was going to remedy his crisis? If so, I give him another 5 years until the next crisis.
The problem, though, is now he has gone and gotten a Ph.D. in philosophy and is on a tenure-track position at a Catholic college. He’s making his living off of the system, just like the Pope, the priests, the monks, the nuns, etc. How can he turn back? If he stops believing he’ll probably have to just play along until retirement. He’s getting too old to start over again.
Maybe this is why there is so much liberalism in the Catholic Church. Lots of people who were “born Catholic”, identify with the church, have family ties there, and it would be too much of a hassle to leave.
Way more baggage than standing on the Scriptures and being Reformed.
Ad hom. As though we would expect Darryl G. Hart to refudiate his own thesis at this point. Sorry, O sons of Calvin, I’m swimming the Bosphorous. Bye!
LikeLike
Cletus,
Except when you’re not.
I know right, kinda like how you all treat the church fathers, as in with an interpretative grid. Except yours is whatever the papa says they mean and ours is Scripture.
LikeLike
Tom – I don’t endorse modernity
Erik – You’re an attorney living in L.A. You have no choice.
Show me the process to challenge and change the Magisterium and then you’ll know how they differ from Confessions.
I imagine that you would agree that if the Magisterium is NOT guided by the Holy Spirit that what we have is a recipe for disaster and the greatest abuse of power the world has ever known.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted December 29, 2013 at 5:36 pm
In response to Erik, you said:
I’ve addressed More’s argument elsewhere, but the notion that “the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium. ‘I will always be with you.’”
This actually turns into an assumption on your part. Without sound exegesis, how do you know that “I will always be with you” applies (a) specifically to “guidance”, (b) “guidance” of “the Magisterium (as opposed to “guidance” of the Apostles, for example). No such exegesis is ever forthcoming.
Couple of thoughts here. First, Rome has had centuries-worth of time for celibate busybodies to sit around to try to think about how to make “the formal argument” to be coherent. Such a thing may have worked in the year 1700 or 1750, but historical study has changed the ground under the historical premises of that “formal argument”.
That’s the gist of all that I wrote about Ignatius and his failure to believe in “apostolic succession” as it was defined in the 2nd century. It is the gist of everything I’ve written at T-blog and Beggars All on “the nonexistent early papacy”.
At that point, the “formal argument” becomes “Oh yeah, but there’s development”, with a total lack of an ability to say precisely how this “development” occurred. Just a vague appeal to “development”.
That’s a major failure in my book.
LikeLike
John,
“And that is a poor comment on 18 centuries of “Rome”, in comparison with an officially atheistic body.”
So now RCC is 18 centuries old when it helps a polemical jab. Try to stay consistent.
I’ve forgotten – what biological diseases did Protestantism help eradicate?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 29, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
Tom – Now, I’m aware of all your objections, but–speaking as a matter of formal argument– the Catholic Church’s argument is coherent.
Erik – Possibly coherent, IF you buy into the idea of apostolic succession in time and space (even if it involves Borgia Popes, Three Popes at the same time, adulterous popes, etc). And this also involves buying into the primacy of Peter as well.
Since every one of your Catholic interlocutors admits to all the bad stuff, you’re pushing against a wall that doesn’t exist.
Neither do they seem that interested in polemics, IOW, rubbing your nose in all the Reformation’s dirt. I mean, the “co-founder” of Lutheranism, Philip Melanchthon, is a how-to book on how to delegitimize the Reformation.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/05/philip-melanchthons-advocacy-of-death.html
Hey, Thomas More is either right or wrong when he claims that by
Jesus is referring to the [Roman] Catholic Church. But it’s a valid and internally coherent argument–and one that has a continuity of some 2000 years.
LikeLike
Erik,
“Possibly coherent”
You’re missing Tom’s bigger point about “The Catholic position claims the sanction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, whereas the confessions seem to merely be propositions [that may be altered, or accepted or rejected depending on the denomination depending on time and place].”
So your bewilderment at why Bryan couldn’t find answers to the Mormons by just going to the confessions misses the point – even if he had done that, it wouldn’t have solved the larger issue at play.
LikeLike
Hello Robert, ( btw, I still owe you a response on another thread)
What does it mean, “God leads his people through his word” if there is no agreement about where He has led? Can you please walk me through how this works?( I’m not being cheeky, promise) I’m leaving off the emoticon but it’d be a grin if I could.
““Christ’s Church” suppressed God’s Word.”
You are mistaken. Are you willing to be corrected if the truth about the situation is told to you?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 29, 2013 at 5:54 pm | Permalink
Tom – I don’t endorse modernity
Erik – You’re an attorney living in L.A. You have no choice.
Show me the process to challenge and change the Magisterium and then you’ll know how they differ from Confessions.
I imagine that you would agree that if the Magisterium is NOT guided by the Holy Spirit that what we have is a recipe for disaster and the greatest abuse of power the world has ever known.
Sure. But the counterargument is that the Reformation IS that disaster. Look at the Church–“the Body of Christ!”–torn into 1000s of pieces.
[FTR: I’m not a lawyer, and my internet adventures often take the form of the critique of modernity. I like classical philosophy, Aquinas, Edmund Burke, and some of Leo Strauss and Francis Schaeffer. So there.]
LikeLike
Tom & Clete,
The Catholic church indeed makes bold claims for itself. That has nothing to do with whether or not those claims are true. All evidence is fair game in determining the truth of those claims. Just because some people dismiss some evidence is irrelevant. Especially when Jesus tells us to judge truth by the fruit of those claiming to have it.
One relevant question to these converts is, what behavior would you have to see by the church to conclude it is false? If the answer is “no evidence would convince me” then they haven’t joined a church, they’ve been brainwashed by a cult.
LikeLike
Tom – Sure. But the counterargument is that the Reformation IS that disaster. Look at the Church–”the Body of Christ!”–torn into 1000s of pieces.
Erik – Which takes us back to the visible vs. invisible question. If visible is key, then why not maintain the nation of Israel as the chosen people? Why criticize the Pharisees and gather 12 disciples from Jewish riff-raff? Since when is God into orderly, perpetual bureaucracy?
If Rome is what she claimed to be I would assume we would be experiencing some kind of heaven-on-earth. We didn’t have that even when they were the only show in town.
LikeLike
Erik,
“The Catholic church indeed makes bold claims for itself. That has nothing to do with whether or not those claims are true.”
True but there’s a difference between evaluating systems based just on their claims, and then evaluating the credibility of those claims. See the discussion at the CtCwaTwist thread.
“One relevant question to these converts is, what behavior would you have to see by the church to conclude it is false?”
That it contradicted itself according to its own criteria for irreformable teaching. So if RCism declared Mary is eternal or Matthew is uninspired or the Book of Mormon is inspired, bye bye. But that doesn’t mean I think that will actually happen – it’s just hypothetical. Just like if someone found Christ’s bones or some indisputable ancient text claiming the Apostles had all colluded and lied.
LikeLike
Kenneth: another difference is a large Church that is relevant on a global scale. Your child is statistically more likely to be abused by a public school teacher than a RC priest
Me: I have read that statement repeatedly, could you please provide me with a link to a peer reviewed study that backs it up?
Besides, I was talking about the cover up. I’ve seen a few stories about public school teachers sexually abusing children in the area of the country where I live in the last few years, but none I can recall where any administrators were involved in a cover up
I’ll repeat what I believe is the reason for the pervasive pattern of cover ups in th priest abuse scandals: the priesthood has to be protected at all costs. If I need to find someone certified to teach in a public school, I can choose from at least two I see at Starbucks every morning- serving the coffee. Around here, the RC has imported priests from the 3rd world to fill vacant posts.
LikeLike
Going back to the “all the Catholic Church has done for humanity” argument. If helping people is teaching them to fish vs. giving them a fish, why do we see lower living standards and much greater inequality of wealth in Mexico, Central America, and South America (colonized by Catholics) than in North America (colonized by Protestants)?
Why are the heavily Catholic, southern European countries (Spain, Italy, Portugal — throw in Catholic Ireland for kicks) so much poorer than England and the Northern European counties (especially Lutheran Germany & Scandinavia)?
It’s easy to appear charitable when the countries you have founded are economic basket cases and perpetually need you to pass through alms to the poor. How about helping people not to be poor in the first place?
LikeLike
Dan – If I need to find someone certified to teach in a public school, I can choose from at least two I see at Starbucks every morning- serving the coffee.
Erik – [Make note to tell daughter to change major…]
LikeLike
Clete – That it contradicted itself according to its own criteria for irreformable teaching. So if RCism declared Mary is eternal or Matthew is uninspired or the Book of Mormon is inspired, bye bye. But that doesn’t mean I think that will actually happen – it’s just hypothetical. Just like if someone found Christ’s bones or some indisputable ancient text claiming the Apostles had all colluded and lied.
Erik – Honest answer.
Be wary of the hierarchy knowing that and making changes just short of that, though. Liberal Protestants have been good at keeping their Confessions and ignoring them at the same time. With some of this dogma there is not much “cost” to maintaining it “on the books”.
I would hope that if “discipline” like gender and sexual orientation of priests becomes up for grabs you would take note. Francis may have already started the ball rolling on sexual orientation.
I think you only have 2 “infallible” doctrines, no? That’s a lot of wiggle-room.
LikeLike
Hello John,
You have always been very kind toward me even though we disagree, thank you good sir.
Seriously, I don’t like disagreeing with people who also claim the name of Jesus; we are divided by doctrine and it isn’t a good thing. So I ask myself who it is amoung the various expressions of Christianity that is effectively able to call us all to a common communion. Protestantism is fractured and so even if Catholics left Catholicism they would be within those varying invisible churches yet still split doctrinally. This isn’t any kind of remedy to the situation, a situation that Jesus( according to Catholics. I had never heard disunity lamented in Reformed Protestantism) cares strongly about. Tell me, do you see how Protestantism can deal with fractured Christianity?
Okay, so you asked what I know infallibly. Well John, at the end of the day, I wanted a guarantor of Christianity,not because I don’t think the bible doesn’t witness to the truth, but because I know that the bible wasn’t written by a magic stylus. Those who wrote it should have continued on under the same faith umbrella regardless if a single word was penned. Jesus, in fact, never told his disciples to write down anything. This tells me that He founded a Church just as the scriptures( that we are fortunate to have) say. This world is filled with various beliefs, and I need to know that somebody knows what the truth is. I’m told, in scripture that I am to obey those who rule over me, and if every Tom, Dick, and Harry is my biblical authority yet they differ amoung themselves, how do I pin point which one is my authority?
LikeLike
Thomas Van Dyke
Posted December 29, 2013 at 5:46 pm
To what purpose should I “have the floor”?
I’ve just posted extensive “affirmative arguments” in this comment that you’ve copied but not responded to, about your own failure to define terms, and your attempt to equivocate “the Catholic church” of some century gone by with the current Roman Catholic Church, which you seem to have ignored. Do you concede all that?
To say (as I’m inclined to say) that the Roman Catholic Church (which I’d define as I did in a comment to CVD above, tracing “the official church located in the city of Rome, along with the hierarchy that it claims for its own — and minus those churches that broke off in the “Great Schism” of the fifth century, in contradiction to those churches located in the eastern part of the empire which resisted Roman claims and later became the “Orthdox” church after 1054) — that “church” is certainly not the true church, nor representative of the true church, certainly not “apostolic” in any sense that I’ve given.
But what I’ve described above is certainly not “a catchall for bad stuff in some indeterminate period and place”. That is what you, yourself, would call “The Infallible Magisterium” all through the centuries.
That is a very bad thing in many ways.
You asked about the “apostolic” church, and I would say that the “apostolic” church was the church of the apostles. such a thing ended when the last apostle died, and that further use of the term “apostolic” church became problematic.
In the early centuries (I’d say before and including Irenaeus) placed far more value on “the doctrine” that was handed on (certainly “undeveloped”) — I’ve got dozens of “footnotes” that can be used to support that statement. And I’ll be happy to support it here as well (or anywhere else you’d care to “read”).
Jumping from those early days (the first 200 years), let’s look at the last 200 years. Newman was probably the most influential thinker in Roman Catholicism in the last 200 years. Newman’s “foundational assumption is this:
That is the assumption upon which is based virtually everything that every Roman Catholic writer of the last 150 years (and certainly the nouvelle theologians leading to Vatican II.
However, while during that time, “biblical scholarship” (especially New Testament scholarship) has confirmed the life of Christ and the truthfulness of the New Testament — that same scholarship has shed light on Roman Catholic claims about “the papacy” and “the episcopacy” during the first four or five centuries.
What we know now, after 200 years of what I’ll call a historical rectal exam (that Newman may or may not have known in his day) is quite a bit more one-sided, in the favor favor of those who reject “early catholicism”, and thus, it is not a “most vexatious and preposterous scepticism” that challenges Newman’s assumptions, but legitimate historical research, compared with Rome’s historical claims, which does make Newman’s assumption a “violent” assumption.
This doesn’t in itself void all of Rome’s claims — however, it does become incumbent upon Rome to own up to some form of “burden of proof”.
Such a thing is not forthcoming — only Bryan’s “logic” and protestations of “begging the question”.
The problem is, we all live in the same universe, and he must deal with that historical research. And he doesn’t.
This is what I mean when I suggest that his logic is flawed because historical research has moved the ground out from under Rome’s historical claims for its own authority.
Is this what you wanted in yielding “the floor” to me?
Can you interact with this?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 29, 2013 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
Tom & Clete,
The Catholic church indeed makes bold claims for itself. That has nothing to do with whether or not those claims are true. All evidence is fair game in determining the truth of those claims. Just because some people dismiss some evidence is irrelevant. Especially when Jesus tells us to judge truth by the fruit of those claiming to have it.
The polemics game is pointless.* Here we have this “Dan” fellow doing the priest sex scandals again–at that rate there is no getting off Square One, ever.
If Rome is what she claimed to be I would assume we would be experiencing some kind of heaven-on-earth. We didn’t have that even when they were the only show in town.</i.
Same deal here. But I don't know who made that claim. In fact, Aquinas speaks of Paul correcting Peter in Acts 10
And there’s the answer to your “papal tyranny” question as well, asked and answered at least 750 years ago.
By the same Thomistic token, I don’t see any reason why “Protestants” or any other members of the Body of Christ can’t rebuke the magisterium over points of erroneous theology. Aquinas believes Peter is the pope, but he also clearly believes that Peter could err [impossible to deny by any plain reading of Acts].
Again, you seem to be pushing against a wall that isn’t there.
_____
*If you’re judging “fruits,” the Reformation’s record is damn shoddy in this world, and near-total anarchy on the theological plane. If both sides play grenade toss, it’s Mutally Assured Destruction. Which leaves only the Eastern Orthodox as last man standing. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…]
LikeLike
Erik to Tom – You’re an attorney living in L.A
Tom – I’m not a lawyer
Erik – I retract the insult. Please apologize to your lovely wife for me, as well.
LikeLike
Dan,
here is one
http://www.examiner.com/article/sexual-exploitation-of-children-arizona-schools-reaches-epidemic-level
LikeLike
That was a lawyer joke by the way.
LikeLike
Erik,
“much greater inequality of wealth in Mexico, Central America, and South America (colonized by Catholics) than in North America (colonized by Protestants)?”
Is it your contention that the sole differentiating factor here is the religion of the colonists? Economics and governmental policy is theology now? To take just one factor, wars and foreign/domestic interference in a country’s growth and resources is driven by policymakers’ view of the gospel?
“Why are the heavily Catholic, southern European countries (Spain, Italy, Portugal — throw in Catholic Ireland for kicks) so much poorer than England and the Northern European counties (especially Lutheran Germany & Scandinavia)?”
Are the prosperous European countries heavily Protestant now? If they’re not, how are they still prosperous? I think you’re basing a complex issue with many many factors – economic prosperity – on an oversimplified thesis.
“I think you only have 2 “infallible” doctrines, no?”
Quite a lot more than that. Do you think Christ is divine and God is a Trinity and Mary was a perpetual virgin are not infallible?
LikeLike
If we’re doing yucky sociology you would have to note that public school teachers are around hundreds of kids 5 days a week. Catholic priests have less access.
Our expectations of the morality of public school teachers would be much lower than Catholic priests, as well.
Protestant ministers vs. Catholic priests is the better comparison.
LikeLike
Tom – Aquinas believes Peter is the pope, but he also clearly believes that Peter could err [impossible to deny by any plain reading of Acts].
Erik – And we believe in Papal infallibility because…
How does the Catholic in the pews know when the current pope is in error and when he is not?
Keep in mind these are people who have gone sola ecclesia whole hog.
LikeLike
Dan and Erik,
this is a brief summary of over 6 major independent studies. The link is not meant to be exhaustive but if you want to do your own research look up the studies for yourself. The major one in the US is the John jay criminal research study. BTW protestant ministers have an identical rate of child abuse as RC priests. What was that about fruit again?
Click to access abuse-color.pdf
LikeLike
Erik – “I think you only have 2 “infallible” doctrines, no?”
Clete – Quite a lot more than that. Do you think Christ is divine and God is a Trinity and Mary was a perpetual virgin are not infallible?
Erik – Crap, you have the list? By all means share it with us.
LikeLike
Kenneth – BTW protestant ministers have an identical rate of child abuse as RC priests. What was that about fruit again?
Erik – Hugely different claims about what our churches are, though.
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted December 29, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
Thomas Van Dyke
Posted December 29, 2013 at 5:46 pm
JB: Are you interested in “affirmative arguments”? Or are you just blowing smoke?
TVD: You have the floor. But links [to your other pieces] are footnotes. Footnotes are not formal arguments.
To what purpose should I “have the floor”?
I’ve just posted extensive “affirmative arguments” in this comment that you’ve copied but not responded to, about your own failure to define terms, and your attempt to equivocate “the Catholic church” of some century gone by with the current Roman Catholic Church, which you seem to have ignored. Do you concede all that?
TVD: You either trace your “apostolic” church through or around the Catholic Church. Pick one. I shall read. So far “Catholic Church”* is a catchall for bad stuff that happened in some indeterminate period and place.
To say (as I’m inclined to say) that the Roman Catholic Church (which I’d define as I did in a comment to CVD above, tracing “the official church located in the city of Rome, along with the hierarchy that it claims for its own — and minus those churches that broke off in the “Great Schism” of the fifth century, in contradiction to those churches located in the eastern part of the empire which resisted Roman claims and later became the “Orthdox” church after 1054) — that “church” is certainly not the true church, nor representative of the true church, certainly not “apostolic” in any sense that I’ve given.
But what I’ve described above is certainly not “a catchall for bad stuff in some indeterminate period and place”. That is what you, yourself, would call “The Infallible Magisterium” all through the centuries.
That is a very bad thing in many ways.
You asked about the “apostolic” church, and I would say that the “apostolic” church was the church of the apostles. such a thing ended when the last apostle died, and that further use of the term “apostolic” church became problematic.
In the early centuries (I’d say before and including Irenaeus) placed far more value on “the doctrine” that was handed on (certainly “undeveloped”) — I’ve got dozens of “footnotes” that can be used to support that statement. And I’ll be happy to support it here as well (or anywhere else you’d care to “read”).
Jumping from those early days (the first 200 years), let’s look at the last 200 years. Newman was probably the most influential thinker in Roman Catholicism in the last 200 years. Newman’s “foundational assumption is this:
It is not a violent assumption, then, but rather mere abstinence from the wanton admission of a principle which would necessarily lead to the most vexatious and preposterous scepticism, to take it for granted, before proof to the contrary, that the Christianity of the second, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate centuries is in its substance the very religion which Christ and His Apostles taught in the first, whatever may be the modifications for good or for evil which lapse of years, or the vicissitudes of human affairs, have impressed upon it.
That is the assumption upon which is based virtually everything that every Roman Catholic writer of the last 150 years (and certainly the nouvelle theologians leading to Vatican II.
However, while during that time, “biblical scholarship” (especially New Testament scholarship) has confirmed the life of Christ and the truthfulness of the New Testament — that same scholarship has shed light on Roman Catholic claims about “the papacy” and “the episcopacy” during the first four or five centuries.
What we know now, after 200 years of what I’ll call a historical rectal exam (that Newman may or may not have known in his day) is quite a bit more one-sided, in the favor favor of those who reject “early catholicism”, and thus, it is not a “most vexatious and preposterous scepticism” that challenges Newman’s assumptions, but legitimate historical research, compared with Rome’s historical claims, which does make Newman’s assumption a “violent” assumption.
This doesn’t in itself void all of Rome’s claims — however, it does become incumbent upon Rome to own up to some form of “burden of proof”.
Such a thing is not forthcoming — only Bryan’s “logic” and protestations of “begging the question”.
The problem is, we all live in the same universe, and he must deal with that historical research. And he doesn’t.
This is what I mean when I suggest that his logic is flawed because historical research has moved the ground out from under Rome’s historical claims for its own authority.
Is this what you wanted in yielding “the floor” to me?
Can you interact with this?
Sorry, no. There’s the apostles, and then there’s the last 200 years, and a bunch of vbrfhduirvluivdr in between. Mebbe Cletus is interested in arguing by polemic but I’m not. if I wanted to “win’ the debate, I’d return the attack by harping on every negative thing I could dig up about the Reformation. there’s absolutely no percentage in being on the defensive and let you attack attack attack.
Because, my friend, finding error is not the same thing as seeking truth. We watch too much courtroom drama these days.
Me, I just wanted to know if the Catholic Church gets credit for hospitals vis-a-vis the Council of Nicaea, a credit you denied.
http://www.reformedreflections.ca/articles/cf-(14)basil-the-great-(ca-330-379-.html
I guess your answer is no. OK, thx. I knew what he meant, though. It’s an argument used against atheists who blame all the problems of the world on religion, Christianity, Catholicism, whathaveyou. It’s not a very productive vein, although the letter of Emperor Julian [the Apostate] to his pagan priests and his embarrassment at the “Galileans” [Christians] care for the poor and sick is worth looking up. That was the last gasp of Greco-Roman paganism in the Empire, and Christianity remained the new religion and prevailing ethos thereafter.
LikeLike
Would a rational person not expect child abuse to be way less prevalent in the one true church (Catholicism) than in false churches (Protestant) and in society at large (public schools)?
LikeLike
Erik,
your list of “what really should be considered” is ever evolving the more and more facts come out…. Maybe you should just cede the point. Its no big deal. As Andrew would say “were just abunch of guys on smart phones”. My first comment on this post was that DGHART was more or less correct here. Liberalism IS rampant and virtually no lay organizations are rallying to put an end to it. Its annoying. O would love to see Catholic Answers and Called to Communion deal with the crises more often. It would be greatly helpful. That’s not their ministry…. I get it…. But still. Annoying.
See how that works? We don’t have to always “hold the front line”.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 29, 2013 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
That was a lawyer joke by the way.
I chuckled. I get the jokes around here, such as they are. Perhaps it’s not mutual, which is why some people seem to think I’m being mean. [Perhaps you should unban emoticons.]
This was a good discussion there for a bit, but I’m not inclined to leave my pearls side-by-side with same old priest sex scandal discussion, which leads nowhere but down. I did find this essay interesting
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/01/celibacy-as-political-resistance
that the custom* of celibacy does free a priest from the bastards getting at him through his wife and children.
___
*Since the Catholic Church is accepting married priests fleeing the Anglican communion, priestly celibacy is a custom, not a doctrine. I foresee an increased role for the laity to run parishes [there are already 30,000 females on the payroll in America, doing parish administration] and perhaps counseling, with the priests tending to the sacramental duties.
And if you want to have some real polemical fun with the abuse scandals–or perhaps to peek behind the curtain at the nature of the problem, google “lavander mafia.” Although it may be the explanation for how things got so bad in the church, it’s not just a catholic thing, it’s a social phenomenon.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted December 29, 2013 at 7:01 pm
You make it seem as if you’ve got a monolith for 200 years and that in itself is worth (a) claiming and (b) skipping over.
For a minute I thought it would be worth having a discussion with you, because you seemed to be both knowledgeable and honest.
But with your response here (and I’m willing to change my opinion here), you seem merely to be a coward and a hypocrite.
Why do I say this?
Because I’m just pausing to ask, “any questions?” And you blow the thing off as “a bunch of vbrfhduirvluivdr in between”.
I haven’t gotten that far yet.
You’re able to post a 200 page paper about Thomas More’s argument, some 500 years ago, and that counts as a formal argument that you accept.
On the other hand, I’m posting actual information and arguments here — and I’ve got hundreds of blog posts making actual arguments, interacting with real people in our day, and interacting with real historical research in our day, and to you, that’s “footnotes”.
Yes, I am inclined to believe that you are just a coward and a blowhard.
Nothing I wrote in my post of December 29, 2013 at 6:44 pm is simply “finding error”. It is a positive statement, providing some historical “bookends” to 2000 years of history, during which “the definition of the word church” (and “the definition of the word ‘catholic'” have failed to be adequately defined).
What I actually did was to provide a positive definition for what you would call “The Infallible Magisterium”. Maybe you don’t like it, but it is what it is. What I’ve defined is a thing on which you and I can at least identify as an identifiable entity.
But for you, you back off as soon as you are offered something of substance.
LikeLike
John B,
Never seen you lose your cool. Why so mad? I like the calm cool and collected John B much more.
using words like “blowhard” and “coward” is not very charitable.
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted December 29, 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke
Posted December 29, 2013 at 7:01 pm
Is this what you wanted in yielding “the floor” to me?
Can you interact with this?
Sorry, no. There’s the apostles, and then there’s the last 200 years, and a bunch of vbrfhduirvluivdr in between.
You make it seem as if you’ve got a monolith for 200 years and that in itself is worth (a) claiming and (b) skipping over.
For a minute I thought it would be worth having a discussion with you, because you seemed to be both knowledgeable and honest.
But with your response here (and I’m willing to change my opinion here), you seem merely to be a coward and a hypocrite.
Why do I say this?
Because I’m just pausing to ask, “any questions?” And you blow the thing off as “a bunch of vbrfhduirvluivdr in between”.
I haven’t gotten that far yet.
You’re able to post a 200 page paper about Thomas More’s argument, some 500 years ago, and that counts as a formal argument that you accept.
On the other hand, I’m posting actual information and arguments here — and I’ve got hundreds of blog posts making actual arguments, interacting with real people in our day, and interacting with real historical research in our day, and to you, that’s “footnotes”.
Yes, I am inclined to believe that you are just a coward and a blowhard.
TVD: Because, my friend, finding error is not the same thing as seeking truth. We watch too much courtroom drama these days.
Nothing I wrote in my post of December 29, 2013 at 6:44 pm is simply “finding error”. It is a positive statement, providing some historical “bookends” to 2000 years of history, during which “the definition of the word church” (and “the definition of the word ‘catholic’” have failed to be adequately defined).
What I actually did was to provide a positive definition for what you would call “The Infallible Magisterium”. Maybe you don’t like it, but it is what it is. What I’ve defined is a thing on which you and I can at least identify as an identifiable entity.
But for you, you back off as soon as you are offered something of substance.
Your history might make sense to somebody, but to me it’s got a hole you can drive a millennium through. Sorry. As for the namecalling, I don’t need that either, John. Peace, out.
[As for Thomas More, Susan just made a form of his argument, that since not everybody is a Biblical scholar or an expert in Hebrew and Greek, 99.99% of everybody is going to end up taking somebody’s word for it all anyway.]
[And I link to the paper on Reformer Tyndale vs. Catholic More because as the author notes, the originals are almost impenetrable by most of us anyway. I link to it for informational purposes only, that people can familiarize themselves with one of the greatest of debates of all time on this same subject, at the very beginning.
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/moretyndale.pdf%5D
Our business seems to be concluded for now. Thank you for your time. I will follow your replies to Susan if you make any. You had a good point about the Ratzinger paper though I demurred for reasons given.
LikeLike
Everyone (who has replied to me),
It has become clear to me, given the replies to my last two comments, that despite Darryl’s claims, it’s not enough for me, or any other Catholic, to seriously acknowledge the Church’s scandalous sins (committed by certain Popes, priests, nuns, and lay Catholics) in past history, and/or in the present day. Even a lengthy statement of sorrow and repentance like this one from the Church seems to do little to address the objections of most people here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html
It’s not even enough for Catholics to commit to fighting scandalous evil in the Church, which I have, and which I do. As I wrote earlier, sexual abuse has touched my own life. I am not one to overlook or explain away such atrocities (or other sorts of atrocities for that matter).
No, none of this is enough. According to D.G., in order for “God’s people” to be truly “liberated,” there is the need to “give up the Pope.” How is that for Reformed triumphalism?
Darryl, the Pope gave Luther so many chances to repent of his rebellion against the Church’s teaching authority. Talk about taking time to discipline! Yes, Luther was called by the Church to teach the Bible– but *not* to teach *his own interpretations* of it that conflicted with those of the Church’s teaching authority.
Surely you can appreciate that principle at least on some level, Dr. Hart? You don’t like it when Presbyterian ministers, such as Peter Leithart, start sounding distinctly “un-Reformed,” do you? In fact, you think that it is right for serious action to be taken. Well, the Church eventually got to that place with Luther and with his interpretation of Scripture which conflicted with the Church’s teaching on justification. You aren’t happy with the Church when you deem that she disciplines too quickly and severely, and you aren’t happy with her when you deem that she doesn’t discipline quickly and severely enough! How can the Church satisfy you? It clearly seems that she cannot satisfy you until she gives up her claim to be the Church that Christ founded, with continuing apostolic succession to the present day, and with His authority to teach, which He entrusted to Peter, the other apostles, and their successors. Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you (though I don’t think you’re really disappointed– the existence of the Catholic Church helps to give Protestantism at least some sense of what she, broadly speaking, does not want to be), but the Church will never stop claiming to be what she, in historical fact, is, no matter how hard to swallow those claims are for committed Protestants.
However, I was a committed five-point Calvinist Protestant for years, and my mind did change about the Catholic Church, and I am far from the only one. It’s funny, to me, that, in my experience and the experience of other Catholic converts and reverts from Reformed Protestantism, no one disputes the grasp of, and commitment to, Reformed Protestant theology that Reformed Christians have *while* they are still Reformed! Jason Stellman was a respected and published Reformed minister and author. Michael Horton was willing to write a blurb for Jason’s book. Jason’s blog was loved by more than a few Reformed people on the internet. Suddenly though, when he announces his move to the Catholic Church, questions are heard from many quarters as to whether he ever “truly understood Reformed theology.” Yes, he did– and at one time, it was very Biblically compelling and convincing to him. Later, over time, that came to be less and less the case. Catholicism made more sense of all of the available data.
This was also the case for me. I was a very happy “Reformed Baptist.” I was so committed to that understanding of the Bible that the missions director at my last Protestant church put me in charge of evaluating the evangelistic material the church would send out, so that I could make sure it was sufficiently reflective of the 5 Sola’s and the Reformational understanding of God’s sovereignty in and over all things!
I didn’t return to the Catholic Church because of undue obsession about “certainty.” I didn’t return because I love philosophy more than Scripture. Actually, my reading and serious study of Scripture (for once, consciously, from outside of a Reformed paradigm, but not *presupposing* a Catholic paradigm) played a much larger role in my “reversion” than any reading of Catholic philosophy! Scripture went a long way in convincing me *out* of distinctive Protestant doctrines, such as justification by faith alone. The early Church Fathers played a crucial role too– they certainly didn’t agree on everything, but the things that they *did* agree on sounded so deeply Catholic, *when* I read their writings in context, and not as quoted by Protestant polemicists. The cumulative case for the Catholic Church simply became overwhelming to this once completely convinced, passionately committed Protestant. I don’t expect that fact to seem anything but pathetic and/or tragic to most people here– but the fact is, I did understand, and was committed to, Calvinistic Protestantism, but finally, through a painful, humbling process, I was convinced that I had greatly misunderstood the Catholic Church and her teachings, and that, she is, in fact, what (and Whose) she claims to be.
As for the objections voiced here about the Church historically “keeping the Bible away from the people”– first of all, throughout the last 2, 000 years, the most basic literacy has not been the most common thing for very large numbers of people, so personal reading of the Bible has often been a concept which most inhabitants of most nations could not even realize in their own lives. The Church taught the Bible to people, and for a great many of them, that was the only way they were going to *be exposed to* any Biblical teaching, period! The Biblical knowledge of the readership of “Old Life” is, to say the least, over the broad sweep of history, an historical anomaly!
Secondly, the Church did, at certain times, confiscate *poor translations* of the Bible which contained heresy– but that was not to keep the Bible itself away from the people, but rather, to protect the people from heresy! Again, it seems, either the Church does too much, in the eyes of the Reformed, or not enough.
Last, if the Church had been so concerned to keep her members in the dark about the Bible and its teachings, then the Church committed a serious act of self-contradiction in charging St. Jerome with the translation of the Bible into Latin– which, at the time, *was* the common tongue in the Roman Empire! Also, the first Bible that was printed via the Gutenberg printing press? It was a Catholic Bible, printed well before the Reformation.
LikeLike
Tom,
Vanity Fair had a piece on the “Secret Gay Life of the Vatican” a few months ago:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/10/vatican-secret-gay-life
You can’t view the whole thing here, but it’s probably somewhere online.
LikeLike
Christopher – Jason Stellman was a respected and published Reformed minister and author
Erik – A reason why no religious author in their twenties should probably ever be published…
LikeLike
Christopher,
Keep working the steps and you may be able to get to heaven with minimal time suffering pain in Purgatory, although I imagine you’ll have to spend quite a bit of time there for the years you spent as a Protestant. You just won’t have enough years on earth to be infused with enough grace. Too bad you’re not a cradle, even a nominal one.
I’ll keep relying on Christ and his righteousness while you’re working the steps, though.
LikeLike
The bottom line is you converts have willingly moved from a system where Christ’s work & righteousness are sufficient to a system where men have told you, “No, Christ’s work is not sufficient. You need US”. You have looked to men to provide what only Christ can provide because only his sinless life & sacrificial death can appease God’s wrath against your sin. Once you think other men are “helping” you or that you are “helping” yourself, you’ve minimized and discounted Christ’s work.
And how do you ever know if the church is helping you enough? If you’re helping yourself enough?
Where does your assurance ultimately lie? In fallible men? In yourself? If in Christ, why do you need these helpers?
And why do we hear so little about Christ from all of you in these ongoing debates? As Daryl would say, where is Jesus?
LikeLike
Consider Hebrews 10.8-14:
First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Do you not grasp the finality of Christ’s sacrifice?
Where is ongoing infusion?
LikeLike
Kenneth Posted December 29, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Not “losing my cool”, nor “angry”. Just being honest, in something like “real time”.
He says “Pick one. I shall read.”
I picked one, and started down a path.
He took a look at the path and begged off.
That, on top of his calling my links “footnotes”, and all the equivocation he was doing (while complaining of equivocation) and it’s not too hard to size up Mr. Tom Van Dyke.
[As for words like “blowhard” and “coward” “not being charitable”, consider that they are. Context.]
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 29, 2013 at 6:43 pm
Tom Van Dyke said that this was a form of Thomas More’s argument.
Well, consider this from the teaching of Jesus:
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Why don’t we modify this a bit:
“The Protestant replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if an infallible interpreter with a living voice goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced an infallible interpreter with a living voice.’”
See, that still works.
What is a “faith umbrella”?
The fact is, words were penned.
Whatever you think anyone should have done, we have what we have.
The problem with this is, we have what God has given us, not what you would like to have.
And in fact, to Lazarus’s rich man (and all the Old Testament believers), God gave “Moses and the Prophets”. Not a “living voice”. Not someone “from the dead”.
He gave Moses, who was a living voice, who wrote his stuff down, and died. He gave Prophets, who were a living voice for a time, who wrote their stuff down (or had it written for them), and they died.
Jesus’s presumption here is that the written word is “sufficient” — that’s all that the rich man needed.
But the pattern of Moses/Prophets writing down their stuff and dying was well known enough that no other qualification needed to be made. The apostles witnessed what they needed to witness, were a living voice about it for a time, wrote it down, and you have the exact same pattern repeating itself.
It’s not rocket science.
You are “begging the question” precisely about what “founded” and “a church” are. It doesn’t take a sola scriptura paradigm to go into the texts and try to figure out what those words mean in context.
Anyone with a mind and a dictionary can make that investigation.
[And saying, as Tom does, “since not everybody is a Biblical scholar or an expert in Hebrew and Greek, 99.99% of everybody is going to end up taking somebody’s word for it all anyway, that just seems like an abdication of responsibility. And, if “you’ve got to take somebody’s word for it”, then why take the word of a source with Rome’s track record? They say “we’re infallible”, but their lives reek — we’re not talking about mere human sinfulness — we’re talking “worst scum of the earth behavior for all humans in history” — vs. the words of a Martin Luther and the heirs of the Reformation who professed honesty even when it promised to cost them their lives?]
This world is filled with various beliefs, and I need to know that somebody knows what the truth is.
Yes, “inquiring minds want to know”. What does Bryan always say? “Saying ‘an argument exists’ isn’t making an argument”.
Saying “someone knows” isn’t saying that the actually do know.
In fact, this is the problem: Rome “begs the question” that it is in charge and infallible, they tell you, “we know”, and that little couple of factoids provides the excuse and cover for all the evils that the Roman church has perpetrated through the centuries.
Which Scriptures were written specifically to you? You haven’t defined what a “biblical authority” is.
We have general principles to live by, but you also have a mind, and you are supposed to be able to use it (“You have Moses and the Prophets”, as well as the Apostles).
LikeLike
Erik,
Wasn’t Calvin in his twenties when he began publishing the “Institutes”? 🙂
I may, indeed, have to spend some time in Purgatory, but it won’t be because I’m not “relying on Christ and His righteousness.” In fact, the more that I do so, within Catholic teaching, the less need that there will be for me to go to Purgatory at all! Relying on Christ and His righteousness has nothing to do with justification by faith alone though. My faith is in Christ alone, my salvation is by grace alone, and any and all “good works” that I do, out of love for God and neighbor, are by His grace and for His glory. Even any merit which I may accumulate for those works, in Catholic teaching (which is not a matter of denying the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, but rather, a case of God rewarding His own gifts, in the words of St. Augustine), is completely by His grace. All of this is the Catholic teaching, Erik. I rely on Christ alone for my salvation, which I work out, in fear, trembling, and joy, by His grace. The Church does not teach that I can get to Heaven through works. The Church condemns Pelagianism as a heresy, along with semi-Pelagianism as well.
The Church simply takes St. Paul and St. James at their word(s), face value, when they say, respectively, that believers must “continue in God’s kindness,” lest we be “cut off” by Him (and it’s hard to be “cut off” by God, if one was never *truly* joined to Him by faith in the first place!), in Romans 11:20-24, and that “man is justified not by faith alone but by works” and “faith apart from works is useless” in James 2:14-24. Yes, Erik, I know well the Reformed interpretations of those passages in Romans and James. At one time, I accepted them. Obviously, I no longer do– and I feel much less weight now than I ever did in trying to make such passages, and multitudes of others, fit into a Reformed paradigm. The Catholic Church makes much more exegetical sense of them.
LikeLike
Christopher,
If you have time, make your Biblical case for the Catholic scheme of justification and let us respond to it. No hurry and it doesn’t have to be all at once.
LikeLike
Christopher,
That’s funny because I almost wrote “Calvin excepted” in the next combox but thought no one would pick up on it. Darn!
With all due respect to Jason Stellman, this clip applies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ5CIkSlUFI
LikeLike
Christopher,
Expound on the biblical doctrine of Purgatory.
LikeLike
Christopher,
Perhaps also expound on the biblical doctrine of indulgences.
And Pope Francis granting them to participants in world Youth Day (even online).
And Tetzel selling them to fund the Pope’s building campaign.
Grounding all this in Scripture, of course.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake: Consider this phrase from the document that you have posted here several times:
Where does “The Church” itself ever become conscious of its own sins?
I know the theological reasons why it doesn’t do this. But that’s “begging the question”. It’s the biggest scam of all time.
LikeLike
Christopher,
On a meter with “hell” on the left, “purgatory” in the middle, and “heaven” on the right where do you measure right now?
How do you know?
How bad are the pains of purgatory?
LikeLike
Clete, the point isn’t about what happened in Lutheran towns. The point is the actual contents of Luther’s vow as professor at Wittenberg.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mv05AAAAcAAJ&dq=martin%20luther%20here%20i%20stand&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q=staupitz&f=false
He was obliged to teach Scripture and not what the magisterium held. Wittenberg was a humanistic institution that was abandoning the scholastic curriculum and it did so with the pope’s blessing.
LikeLike
kenloses, when the Vatican comes around to Jerome and Aquinas, I’ll take your point seriously. But does it really matter whether Jerome and Aquinas were superior to Luther and Calvin? It’s all about the magisterium, remember? Jerome and Aquinas weren’t infallible. You keep reasoning like a Protestant. Man, your church is really off the rails.
LikeLike
Dan, but what explains the schizophrenia of laity doing cartwheels to defend clerics who don’t defend their authority anymore? This isn’t buyer’s remorse. It is buyer becomes salesman.
LikeLike
John, it’s an interesting line of reflection and one I pursued only briefly at CtC but continues to rear it’s presumed head, and that is that there is a superior form of piety and fealty in an exaggerated implicit faith. But, I like you, find it an unacceptable abdication, particularly in view of the lauding of the Bereans or even the Gentiles in Rom 2 who will be held to account for that internal witness even apart from oracles of God that the Jews were advantaged by. Anyway, it’s a point of demarcation that seems to be assumed but rarely vetted in these discussion.
LikeLike
Tom, look at the Reformation — a disaster.
That’s rich coming from a guy who doesn’t belong to any church or identify with any tradition. Without the Reformation you’d either be tormented into going to church, in exile, or dead.
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Kenloses, Tom VD has that effect on people.
LikeLike
Christopher, the link to the “apology” is not really an apology. It’s a long windish statement on how the church may or may not reflect on the past and errors or sins that it may have committed. If I tried that sort of expression with my wife when wanting out of the doghouse, I’m still in it. It has some interesting points. But the bits on history are so obscure that I doubt anyone but Benedict XVI could finally use it as any kind of playbook for pastoral ministry.
BTW, you need to keep clear that what set Luther off were the sale of indulgences to help pay for building in Rome. And these indulgences were premised on notions about the church’s power to liberate souls from purgatory. I hear lots from Francis and other apologists how the church condemns no one to hell. That is God’s call. But the church can take the credit for getting people out of purgatory and making them saints. God is bad cop, the church is good cop. Well.
Indulgences is bad business — spiritually and economically. Go ahead and defend ’em.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake, is that infused or imputed righteousness of Christ on which you rely? If infused, how do you ever get rid of the guilt of sin? If you break one law, you break them all.
LikeLike
Susan, I don’t trust Luther. I think that he understands Scripture. Rome didn’t and still doesn’t.
My mechanism for knowing this is word and Spirit.
What’s yours? Why do you believe the Bishop of Rome but not the Bishop of Milan (Cardinal Martini)? They didn’t say the same things and both claim apostolic succession.
And what would have been your mechanism for resolving the three popes of the late fourteenth century? Which one would you have chosen? (You know that papal crisis really did make European elites aware of Rome’s vulnerability. But you don’t seem to have enough historical awareness to know that the papacy may have been responsible for the Reformation buy writing checks it couldn’t pay.)
LikeLike
Susan,
Protestantism understands enough to know that SS and JBFA are taught in the infallible Scripture, that there are only two sacraments and that the pope is not the head of the Christian church. That’s a pretty good start compared to redefining Scripture to include the Trad/Mag w.o. any desire to supply a ToC; teaching transubstantiation, the IDeception/co redemptrix, image worship and that ignorant/implict faith is – contra the Bereans – saving faith. No thanks.
Yeah, the visible unity thing can stumble those who want to walk by sight, but that’s what we are explicitly told not to do in Scripture. The disunity is a scandal it is not enough of an argument to buy into a communion that denies SS and JBFA.
(I know, the ECF’s, the ECF’s. Well they weren’t infallible either and they didn’t universally hold to the supremacy of the pope. So the roman argument is . . .what?)
LikeLike
Clete, we don’t waste our time over at CtC due to the guy with the smirk’s post vetting policy as Erik recently demonstrated.
Chris, go jump in the lake and call Tom the lawyer. (That’s a joke, ask Erik for the punch line.)
So yeah, Jerome is charged by the church to translate the Bible into Latin which was vernacular at the time, but at the Reformation/Trent? Come on, we’re not that dull. The first pope – arguably Leo – doesn’t show until some 200 years after Jerome. So where was the Roman church that whole time? You know the one with a universal bishop with universal jurisdiction?
LikeLike
I should have known that Tom wasn’t a lawyer. What lawyer worth his salt would spend that many (potentially billable) hours here?
LikeLike
The scariest thing in our country today is too many lawyers with time on their hands. They start looking for things to sue people over. The shrinking of law school enrollments and the growth of our economy are probably highly correlated.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2013 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
Tom, look at the Reformation — a disaster.
That’s rich coming from a guy who doesn’t belong to any church or identify with any tradition. Without the Reformation you’d either be tormented into going to church, in exile, or dead.
You’re welcome.
Pls quote me directly, Darryl. Actually, I said that
the Reformation being the disaster Erik mentioned as the Catholic counterargument. “Protestantism” is an umbrella term for tens or 100s or 1000s of doctrinal schisms, unified only in being “not-Catholic.” [Or in your case, anti-Catholic.]
Now if Protestants said “the Holy Spirit told me so” I’d be like, OK, man. I wasn’t there when He/She/It told you, so what do I know? When are you going to start reading me charitably [and what i’ve been writing for years]? I don’t dispute faith claims; I’m a pluralist.
D. G. Hart
Posted December 29, 2013 at 9:41 pm | Permalink
Kenloses, Tom VD has that effect on people.
Oh.
You didn’t really just make a filthy joke out of my name on purpose did you, D? I confess I do have an effect on people, that they play dirty when the tricks they’ve been getting away with for years are exposed as tricks, not arguments. I gave up on the Baylys fairly easily–they’re fideists and I don’t argue with fideists. The Bible calls them “sodomites” and so do we.
Can’t argue with that, y’know. Sola scriptura.
LikeLike
DGH -Dan, but what explains the schizophrenia of laity doing cartwheels to defend clerics who don’t defend their authority anymore? This isn’t buyer’s remorse. It is buyer becomes salesman.
The only Catholics I know are cradles, and they all share a degree of disgust re: the priest scandals ranging from mild to extreme. But, most of them have always seemed to me to be at least mildly anti-clerical- kind of an “us” (laity) vs “them”(priesthood) mentality. None of them have ever tried to convert me, but maybe that is because I’m a Baptist and a CBF one at that. Do you confessional types give off some kind of scent? (Emoticon) All I can say is that the real world here in my part of fly over country doesn’t resemble the interweb.
LikeLike
John,
Why don’t we modify this a bit:
“The Protestant replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if an infallible interpreter with a living voice goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced an infallible interpreter with a living voice.’”
See, that still works”
It doesn’t work John. For one, with your modification, you’ve twisted scripture out of context. Yes, people have the OT to tell them how they are to live righteously, but they don’t always repent even if someone is raised from the dead.
Why did you skirt away from the real point that I was making??; that is if Christianity doesn’t have guarantor then everybodys best interpretation is as good as another and therefore Catholicism is an equally valid expression, so by what authority do you promote your version? Since we can’t know doctrine with certainty(except when the invisible (c) atholic church can), I’ll just cross my fingers and go with the oldest expression I can find even if it develops doctrinally because scripturally Cathlicism( in my fallible judgement) makes use of more scriptural material than does Protestantism, and so has won better credibility.
LikeLike
John,
The OT people were a people of the book, I understand this. But they were a people being led by God and the written word was an outworking of their community. This is the same for the NT people of God; OT prophecy sees fulfillment in the Messiah( The Kingdom of God is at a hand), and so full blown Gentile inclusion came, but theoretically the Church could have continued without NT scriptures if one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was what the gates of hell would not prevail against. In Protestant ecclesiology, one cannot locate the visible body where one is morally obliged to submit to a visible authority.
LikeLike
“scripturally Cathlicism( in my fallible judgement) makes use of more scriptural material than does Protestantism, and so has won better credibility.”
My BS alarm just went off. Go ahead and talk to a RC who frankly admits tradition and authority are da bomb and you can at least talk. Anyone who says it’s more scriptural is either drunk on the kool-aid or blowing smoke.
LikeLike
Hi Bob,
You said, “Protestantism understands enough to know that SS and JBFA are taught in the infallible Scripture, that there are only two sacraments and that the pope is not the head of the Christian church.”
Ok, so what’s your explanation as to why the Roman Catholic Church neither formally taught SS nor JBFA?
Doesn’t it seem weird to anyone that for 1500 years these doctrines weren’t taught? To some of you this means that the Roman Church was so corrupt, from since some unknown date, and hid those doctrines from not only the laity but from the clergy. The other option is that no one knew these doctrines( as understood by Protestants), which means that they were Luther’s invention.( 2 Peter 3:16)
Let’s leave this aside for the time being. You say that there are only two sacraments. How do you know this?
Muddy, thinks it’s BS that I would assert that the RCC makes better use of the material of scripture.
But when one is given scripture to back up a doctrine, it’s hard to refute it… Scripture being perspicuous and all 🙂
LikeLike
If we just cross our fingers and go with the oldest expression, I mean, hello Judaism. Am I right?
Peace.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 29, 2013 at 10:18 pm | Permalink
The scariest thing in our country today is too many lawyers with time on their hands. They start looking for things to sue people over. The shrinking of law school enrollments and the growth of our economy are probably highly correlated.
Danged right, Erik, although the shrinking of our economy under this Obama fella is the correlation to shrinking law school enrollments. The more money, the more lawyers. Let’s discuss it sometime. Lawyers also set up new companies. I made serious money in Silicon Valley during the boom placing “transactional” lawyers. Everybody was making so much $$ that suing each other was a waste of time and effort.
[Is there a theological analogue here? Hm. Is the Great Commission a zero-sum game? Catlicks and PBs bagging on each other seems such a waste.]
[Darryl’s Philadelphia Iggles beat the Debbie-Does-Dallas Cowboys tonight, thank God, and now have to beat the New Orleans Saints to move ahead in the playoffs. The theological implications make my eyes glaze over.]
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted December 30, 2013 at 12:20 am | Permalink
If we just cross our fingers and go with the oldest expression, I mean, hello Judaism. Am I right?
Peace.
Yes you are, AB. If you’re a Trinitarian, Jesus is also Mighty Jehovah. Am I right?
Peace. And/or sword.
LikeLike
DGHART,
my point is that if you are going to truly be your own man (following scripture alone) and not be a slave to man made traditions why not at least cherry pick from the very best and brightest? I don’t understand the devotion to Luther and Calvin. Their work is completely reactionary. Think of everything Martin Luther hacked away from the faith. No Pope. No infallible Church. No priesthood. Those things obviously can’t be in scripture if you’re going to break from the Church. But if no priesthood what of the sacraments? What of confession? What of the mass? Those obviously have to go. But if no mass and no confession how does one get to heaven? What can we postulate to make the Church unnecessary for salvation? Why, faith alone of course! But then what of the book of James? Well its an epistle of straw! On down the line you go. Book by book doctrine by doctrine anything that could lead to a Church with a divine priesthood and sacraments has to go. The only thing Calvin added to the whole equation was some fine tuning (to really really make sure there was no use for the Church) and a doctrine of grace that compliments the new system. I’m to believe that this all just so happened to be in the bible all along? Aquinas, Jerome, Augustine, they all just missed it? How can one argue for perspicuity and say that with a straight face?
there’s no need to settle for TULIP when you can have Thomas. No reason for Luther if there is Jerome and Augustine. In a word…. No reason to be a protestant when you can stand with a Church bathed in Apostolic Tradition and founded by Christ Himself
LikeLike
Susan
Posted December 29, 2013 at 11:43 pm | Permalink
You have made about six assumptions in that small statement, all wishful thinking, based on a total lack of exegesis of what any of those words meant in context.
Susan, you’re handing your treasure to a lying thief.
LikeLike
sean
Posted December 29, 2013 at 9:30 pm
Sean — There’s something that Susan said as well, which should send shivvers up her spine.
If she wants to make a case that Roman leadership today is the same as Israel’s “leadership”, she should consider that much of the OT features the prophets presenting God’s plans to get rid of that “leadership”.
LikeLike
Dan, the scent may be an air of philosophical authority and culture-shaping might — you know, Calvinism gave us the modern world. And then you find out that Rome has an even more comprehensive view. Accepting limits is hard.
LikeLike
Susan writes: “if Christianity doesn’t have guarantor then everybodys best interpretation is as good as another and therefore Catholicism is an equally valid expression, so by what authority do you promote your version.”
Say hello to Roman Catholicism in the U.S.
LikeLike
kenloses, your ignorance of someone who tried the best of what Rome had to offer and the spiritual torments that followed is truly breathtaking. Try reading the early chapters of Roland Bainton’s biography of Luther and spend some time with how worldly and unpastoral Rome was in the matter of indulgences and purgatory, and then maybe you can put down Luther.
But if you want to take comfort from the intellectual certainty that comes with believing in officers who have a vested interested in telling you they are supreme and infallible rather than trusting in Christ, have at it.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 30, 2013 at 6:15 am | Permalink
Dan, the scent may be an air of philosophical authority and culture-shaping might — you know, Calvinism gave us the modern world. And then you find out that Rome has an even more comprehensive view. Accepting limits is hard.
Yo, D—I’m still up late buzzing on the Birds’ glorious victory over the Cowgirls, listening to WIP.
I’d bet that not one of the Old Life faithful has the dimmest idea of what you’re on about here about “philosophical authority and culture-shaping might,” let alone your intended victim.
[Pipe up now, Old Life faithful. Give Darryl some back. Me, I don’t think you know what he’s saying, even though you automatically agree with it.]
D, aside from possibly your wife, I might be the only one who reads you fully and actually gets you, which I hope doesn’t disappoint you or drive you to suicide or anything. That would seriously bum me out.
————-
To work, Darryl: Calvinism didn’t exactly “give us the modern world,” because I don’t know what you mean by “modern world.”
Or what you mean by “Calvinism.” Whose Calvinism is it anyway? Beza’s? Knox’s? Witherspoon’s? Kuyper’s? Yours?
Calvin’s? As you require from your catholic targets, stand still so Darryl can shoot at you!
[At least the Baylys are sporting enough to stand still, if only to shoot back!]
For the record, I do think Calvin[ism] disrupted not only Catholicism but Luther[anism] as well, and was the wild card in Western Civilization’s “progress” since 1500 or so.
Could very well be that without that wild card, “Christianity” would just be as boring as the Shias vs. the Sunnis.
LikeLike
Tom, if only you read me as “fully and actually” as you try to show me up.
I know, I know, you really really want to be friends.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 30, 2013 at 6:21 am | Permalink
Susan writes: “if Christianity doesn’t have guarantor then everybodys best interpretation is as good as another and therefore Catholicism is an equally valid expression, so by what authority do you promote your version.”
Say hello to Roman Catholicism in the U.S.
Professor Hart, your source is the left-wing, “liberal theology,” anti-Vatican National Catholic Reporter. That’s not “Roman Catholicism in the U.S.,” it’s a dissident newspaper. Stop badgering the witness.
Susan, you don’t have to answer to this crap. Dr. Hart’s question is out of order.
Susan writes: “if Christianity doesn’t have guarantor then everybodys best interpretation is as good as another and therefore Catholicism is an equally valid expression, so by what authority do you promote your version.”
Dr. Hart may resume questioning, but only along the lines of Susan’s original premise
Keep it clean, folks. The Catholic Church’s claim is that the Holy Spirit is its “guarantor.” Solid word there, Susan, “guarantor.” Stick to it, don’t get dragged into the weeds by other words. Words are strong, but also fragile. People will bend words on you, until they break.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 30, 2013 at 7:32 am | Permalink
Tom, if only you read me as “fully and actually” as you try to show me up.
I know, I know, you really really want to be friends.
Not just friends, brothers. But we already are, you silly. Of course I will read any offered link[s]! And da Birds–is Chip the coolest or what?
LikeLike
DGH- Dan, the scent may be an air of philosophical authority and culture-shaping might — you know, Calvinism gave us the modern world. And then you find out that Rome has an even more comprehensive view. Accepting limits is hard.
I hope your tongue is firmly in your cheek- Calvinism didn’t give us the modern world, that Catholic fanatic Columbus did. Catholics have been trying to shift the blame ever since. See Morison’s classic Admiral of the Ocean Sea and more recently Charles C. Mann’s 1493. On Columbus’ religious motives, see Carol Delaney, Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem.
With that caveat, I think you are right. The transformational impulse certainly does not respect denominational boundaries, and the more comprehensive the claim, I guess the greater the temptation.
LikeLike
Susan,
If Christianity doesn’t have guarantor then everybodys best interpretation is as good as another and therefore Catholicism is an equally valid expression.
But you would never say this about any other area of knowledge. Where is the guarantor of mathematics? Is the system of Joe Smith who thinks that 5+5=361 as good as John, who says 2+2=4.
You asked somewhere else what God speaking by His Spirit through Scripture looks like. Here are some examples:
1. Athanasius turning to Scripture to defend the Nicene definition.
2. Augustine discovering that God really doesn’t love all people the same way and chooses only some for salvation.
3. Cyprian protesting the intervention of the bishop of Rome in his diocese.
4. Hus dying at the hands of the Roman Church, who infallibly thought it had the right to burn heretics, rather than recanting of his biblical teachings.
5. Luther, Calvin, and others going ad fontes.
6. The Westminster Assembly carefully debating Scripture and coming to consensus on its primacy.
7. The PCA and OPC rejecting rank liberalism even as modern Rome embraces it.
8. Above all, believing that Scripture is sufficient and that Christ saves people without their help, and without the help of purgatory, indulgences, Mary, et al.
LikeLike
Yes, Tom, the man who does not do theology — only history — is now telling us Roman Catholic dogma. Fitting since he seems to think he is pope of the blogosphere.
LikeLike
Tom, be careful. You could push me to root for the Lions.
LikeLike
“Pope Francis not only raises this same concern, he goes to a slum in Rio for a cup of tea with some of the residents and invites homeless men – and their dog! – to breakfast on his birthday….”
He needs to be careful:
LikeLike
Christopher (or Susan, or TVD, or any RCC out there),
Bryan bounced a question I had for you at CTC. There, Christopher said “I have spent time in Catholic parishes with….even heretical, homilies and “dissenting” lay Catholics. And, you stated that the statistics that Dr Hart cited about lack of adherence to RCC teachings, within and amongst, the RCC to be “lamentable”, so I assume you do not dispute the statistics.
Protestants would concede that anecdotal instances of rogue priests giving heretical homilies does not, necessarily, invalidate the official doctrinal posture of the RCC. Nor does the existence of all the dissent within RCC ranks, necessarily, invalidate the official doctrinal posture of the RCC. (These things raise some serious questions, however.)
However, can one of you elaborate and/or clarify something? On the one hand, RCC folks mourn that protestants are schismatic. The protestants that interact with CTC (or here at Old Life) are largely fervent in their own faith and Biblically literate…folks that you would consider to be “separated brethren”. On the other hand, you concede that there is some significant number of very liberal, if not outright heretical, laymen and priests who are official members of the visible RCC. And, you concede that there is considerable lack of adherence, within RCC ranks, by its members to official RCC teachings.
My sincere question is this. In the hierarchy of ‘sins’, which crowd has committed the worse sin? Is it worse, in your view, for fervent Christ-following protestants to be schismatic, or is it worse for there to be heretics and dissenters within the RCC’s very own ranks?
LikeLike
DGHART,
you are in denial
LikeLike
Corn,
Who can say? We do not judge such things. I think that the term “separated brethren” can be so misleading to protestants. Remember that per Catholic theology you can be “in the body of Christ” and still be a “dead member” that is hell bound. If someone is dissenting through invincible ignorance or remains protestant “through no fault of their own” then I would say there is a very slim chance for salvation for each side…. But lay Catholics don’t make those kind of judgements. Thats up to God alone.
LikeLike
“My sincere question is this. In the hierarchy of ‘sins’, which crowd has committed the worse sin? Is it worse, in your view, for fervent Christ-following protestants to be schismatic, or is it worse for there to be heretics and dissenters within the RCC’s very own ranks?”
Muddy sez it’s always worth a try to plug in “follow the money.” Dress it up as a hypothesis if you want. How can Bryan and Jason, two former Protestant ministers, make a living as Catholics? Well, making a lot of noise about their conversions and conducting a high profile campaign to get other Protestant converts could be pretty helpful. Call it a PR campaign. Well now, pointing out bad Catholics wouldn’t be nearly as promising, money wise, would it? Just doing my due diligence to consider all possibilities. It’s my logical duty.
Mudster is cranky.
LikeLike
Corn-czar and Kenloses, “who can say? We do not judge such things.”
Talk about denial.
Is a Protestant, by no fault of his own, in a better standing for salvation than a Roman Catholic who never goes to confession, goes to Mass once a year, and pays little heed to the magisterium?
LikeLike
Robert,
Yeah we would not say that about any other area of knowledge because its supernatural divine revelation. Again you reduce articles of faith to biology or math textbooks so that anyone who rejected it is just not sufficiently informed. Faith isnt naturalism. Articles of faith are taken on authority. So whose authority am I gonna take?
LikeLike
Darryl,
To whom much is given much is required. Who can read the heart for culpability?
LikeLike
Cletus,
You take it on the authority of God Himself. God has always spoken through His Word. It is the burden of proof upon you to show us that those who are neither apostles or prophets have the authority to circumvent what they said. Nobody but nobody can ground RC doctrine in Scripture.
I’m still looking for that passage that teaches Mary as a mediator or indulgences.
LikeLike
Kenneth – I don’t think the term “separated brethren” was misleading…but, I think your paragraph at 1:05pm is highly confusing. Someone can be a ‘brother’ and part of the ‘body of Christ’ and yet be hell-bound? If that is the RCC view, then your soteriology is just as confusing as your ecclesiology.
Mr. M. Gravel has espoused a plausible answer to my query. Thanks to him for that.
I suppose I’m mostly curious why (it appears to me) that RCC web-apologists seem more energized about protestants than they are about all the embittered, lapsed (but, card-carrying nonetheless) RCC folks.
LikeLike
Clete, someone reads the heart for sainthood. Why not read the heart all the time?
LikeLike
Corn-Czar, because we don’t have lives and the lines between Rome and Protestants still matter to us. The lapsed don’t care about the doings of the “hotter sort” of Roman Catholics. And apparently the bishops aren’t doing much to help either.
LikeLike
Corn,
The fact that you didnt know that RCs have a doctrine of mortal sin and spiritual death is what makes the idea of “seperated breathren” misleading to those who hold to TULIP. You hear that and (like Robert) immediately think “OK cool so Im still good”. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
DGHART,
If the RC in question is NOT invincibly ignorant and the protestant is…. still too close to call. Impossible to know.
LikeLike
Robert,
But you would never say this about any other area of knowledge. Where is the guarantor of mathematics? Is the system of Joe Smith who thinks that 5+5=361 as good as John, who says 2+2=4.
But we’re not taling about mathematics. We’re talking about matters of faith within a revealed religion. Is the truth about there being a resurrection know by you a priori?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Pope Francis called and is demanding you stop this pious nonsense.
We have goodwill toward the poor, the lonely aged, and unemployed youth so we’re good with him. Who cares what you think.
LikeLike
Susan,
Did you have a good relationship with your dad? Serious question.
LikeLike
Erik,
Are you a psychologist? Why do you ask?
LikeLike
Susan,
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Trying to ascertain the degree to which you aspire toward a strong authority figure who will “take charge”.
LikeLike
Listening to Jason Stellman’s interview on EWTN.
He just said the first time he ran across the Roman Catholic claim about the authority of the Magisterium was AFTER he was a Presbyterian minister. What?
Nothing in Seminary?
Nothing in his Ordination Exams in the PCA?
Who dropped the ball here?
LikeLike
46 minutes in Jason cites James 2 and Abraham as evidence that we are saved not by faith alone but by faith and works.
20 “You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.”
What was Abraham’s “work”? Believing God’s promises.
What is justification by faith? Believing God’s promises.
You need to square James 2 with Ephesians 2:8-9:
8″ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.”
LikeLike
For the first 45 minutes he managed to not say “paradigm” once. Now he’s saying it a lot. Uh-oh.
Pretty interesting interview, though.
The #1 lesson may be not to send someone overseas at 18 to be a missionary. Live some life, drink some beer, take some college classes, experience some hard knocks, develop some cynicism about claims to authority, then, maybe, think about the ministry.
LikeLike
Jason says he was delighted to find that he was able to bring a lot of his Protestant beliefs that he cherished with him into “The Church”. Now they are in the right “Ecosystem”.
Has he considered that that’s what happens when “The Church” has a 3,000 Q&A catechism, syncretism, giving with one hand and taking away with the other, etc.
Big Tent, all welcome, just send in the dues and it’s all good.
LikeLike
The fact that you didnt know that RCs have a doctrine of mortal sin and spiritual death is what makes the idea of “seperated breathren” misleading to those who hold to TULIP.
Kenneth, or the very phrase itself. After all, who refers to others in spiritual peril (as in doctrine and life) as “brethren”? The Reformed don’t. We confess that “…since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, people ought not to withdraw from it, content to be by themselves, regardless of their status or condition. But all people are obliged to join and unite with it, keeping the unity of the church by submitting to its instruction and discipline, by bending their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and by serving to build up one another…And so, all who withdraw from the church or do not join it act contrary to God’s ordinance.” (Belgic 28).
We do not refer to those who have separated as brethren, since fraternal relations hinge on the church. We do not have any language that would cause any confusion for those who forsake the church, apart from which there is no hope for salvation. True, there are hypocrites within and sheep without, but no where in our formal language do we give the schismatic reason to think that in his separation he may yet conceive of himself as in the fold. Maybe you need another term, even if it means you sound less ecumenical and more like us meanie-head Calvinists. You may brag about the Catholic cultural cred (yawn), but the higher view of the church is over here–infallibility sounds high, but until you go with Trent’s anathema over V2’s ecumenism…
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 30, 2013 at 7:32 am | Permalink
Tom, if only you read me as “fully and actually” as you try to show me up.
I know, I know, you really really want to be friends.
Link didn’t work. Something about neo-Calvinism but it doesn’t lead anywhere.
Like most of your
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 30, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
Susan,
Did you have a good relationship with your dad? Serious question.
You should read her her Old Life rights first, that anything she says can and will be used against her.
LikeLike
Susan,
2+2=4 is a revealed truth. All truth is revealed truth. All truth depends on revelation.
Look, I get that with religious claims we are often talking about what is invisible. But the claims that you guys are making is that the Bible is just so hard to understand that we need somebody to tell us authoritatively and infallibly what it means. And that’s a claim you all take for granted while assuming that every other kind of truth is just so much more obvious and easier to get. That’s an assumption that needs to be proved, especially when the Bible itself assumes that it is so simple that uneducated and illiterate Israelite farmers can teach it to their children (Deut. 6).
Why is the code of canon law and conciliar decrees easier to understand than Scripture, especially when you have one RC like Kenneth essentially telling us that V2 was a big mistake and full of unfortunate language and another like Bryan Cross doing the whole “unbroken” tradition thing?
Sorry, I’m just not seeing that whole principled distinction thing working in any practical sense.
LikeLike
Corn-Czar
Posted December 30, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Permalink
Christopher (or Susan, or TVD, or any RCC out there),
Bryan bounced a question I had for you at CTC. There, Christopher said “I have spent time in Catholic parishes with….even heretical, homilies and “dissenting” lay Catholics. And, you stated that the statistics that Dr Hart cited about lack of adherence to RCC teachings, within and amongst, the RCC to be “lamentable”, so I assume you do not dispute the statistics.
Protestants would concede that anecdotal instances of rogue priests giving heretical homilies does not, necessarily, invalidate the official doctrinal posture of the RCC. Nor does the existence of all the dissent within RCC ranks, necessarily, invalidate the official doctrinal posture of the RCC. (These things raise some serious questions, however.)
However, can one of you elaborate and/or clarify something? On the one hand, RCC folks mourn that protestants are schismatic. The protestants that interact with CTC (or here at Old Life) are largely fervent in their own faith and Biblically literate…folks that you would consider to be “separated brethren”. On the other hand, you concede that there is some significant number of very liberal, if not outright heretical, laymen and priests who are official members of the visible RCC. And, you concede that there is considerable lack of adherence, within RCC ranks, by its members to official RCC teachings.
My sincere question is this. In the hierarchy of ‘sins’, which crowd has committed the worse sin? Is it worse, in your view, for fervent Christ-following protestants to be schismatic, or is it worse for there to be heretics and dissenters within the RCC’s very own ranks?
When in doubt, ask Aquinas.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3039.htm
LikeLike
Susan, “we’re not talking about mathematics.”
You’re not reading Bryan Cross and Clete.
LikeLike
#neo-Calvinism
LikeLike
“The #1 lesson may be not to send someone overseas at 18 to be a missionary.”
Great point, Erik. Putting a man into such a position at a too-young age if often a recipe for spiritual shipwreck. This makes up for your earlier cheap shot against attorneys.
LikeLike
Erik,
My dad wouldn’t vouch for a Protestant let alone a Catholic. He didn’t go for organized religion, he was more of an Oldmobile man. But hey, thanks!
LikeLike
Robert,
“But the claims that you guys are making is that the Bible is just so hard to understand that we need somebody to tell us authoritatively and infallibly what it means. And that’s a claim you all take for granted while assuming that every other kind of truth is just so much more obvious and easier to get. That’s an assumption that needs to be proved, especially when the Bible itself assumes that it is so simple that uneducated and illiterate Israelite farmers can teach it to their children (Deut. 6).”
There is no biblical consensus amoung Protestants on whether or not infants should be baptized and you are equally hazy on how many times per moth communion should be served, to say nothing of the confusion about the real presence in the Eucharist( why’d you try to modernize it in the first place??). Can you see how it is that I’d be a bit untrusting of your ability to back up the resurrection? ( ” That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”).
LikeLike
but theoretically the Church could have continued without NT scriptures if one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was what the gates of hell would not prevail against.
But of course we only know this Susan, because of the NT, not the lost oral apostolic tradition. Which is the point. Without Scripture, we are blind men fumbling around in the abyss. Or CtC doing the internet thing along wif the wifebeater and the rest of the motley crue over here.
I know it may come as a surprise and shock, but the early church – not the Roman church, that came much later – venerated the Scriptures, even more than it did the pope, tradition or the saints. Take a gander at DT King’s 3 volume work and get back to us later even if somebody is on record of stupidly believing that calling King stupid, demonstrates that King’s choice and translation of the ECF’s is stupid.
As for the sacraments, which ones did Christ explicitly institute? In Scripture? There are only two. It can’t be that hard to figure out. And prot disagreement over the true sacrament of baptism isn’t outdone by Rome’s adding false sacraments? Get serious.
And all that after you or any other romanist can respond substantively to John’s about an infallible interpreter being more effective than Moses and the prophets of Lk. 16. If Jesus didn’t appeal constantly to Scripture, he did nothing, as in:
“Man does not live by bread alone, but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Deut. 8:3) Matt. 4:4.”
Yet we are supposed to take Rome’s word for it, if not yours that we ought to disregard Christ and pay more attention to the pope. Like where do we get this kind of raw arrogance, if not blatant unbelief and ignorance?
MM that was not a cheap shot against attorneys, that was the money shot.
LikeLike
Bob,
I will take a look at the 3 volume set by King that you mentioned.
I’d like to ask you how long the notion of sacraments has been part of the nomenclature of Christianity. I don’t know much about Christian history,so I am in complete earnest. Was there seven before the Reformation? If yes, why and how did the RCC come to that particuliar number? Is there a science behind it? And if no, on what biblical grounds can a Protestant dismiss the right of Catholics to employ this idea of there being seven sacraments? I mean, numerically it sounds like a good biblical number to me.Just because someone told you Jesus only instituted two, you would do well to question every Protestant assertion. I would think since eternity is riding due diligence rather than hear say, would be in order.
LikeLike
Everyone (who has replied to me since I last commented),
Well, I certainly feel loved here at Old Life, but in my humanness, I confess to being a little frustrated too!:-) I disappeared for two days (actually, a little less), to take care of life away from the internet (such is life), and I now have numerous replies here, asking me many questions, some of which the answers for are more suited to exegetical and church-historical *research papers* than to comments in a combox! 🙂 I love all of you in Christ, and I want to answer all of your questions, but I have limited time, and the comments move here quite quickly! What to do?
In some cases (not all), yes, I may have to resort to posting links to articles which go much, much more in-depth (into answering your questions) than I am able to do, with limited time, in a quickly-moving forum such as this one.
However, before I even go there, *if* I post the links to said articles which help to answer said questions– will the people who actually asked me said questions actually read the articles? If so, then that’s great, and I’ll get on it later today and tomorrow! If not, then my posting the links at all is quite possibly fruitless. I’m hoping for the former.
Again, if I could write research papers to answer the questions here (some of them, not all!) which really necessitate them, I would– but I can’t. There’s just not enough time in my day. Please let me know if you’ll read the articles (where this may be applicable). Thanks and blessings!
LikeLike
Susan, you’re going to double down on RCC unity in response to a post about liberalism in Roman Catholicism? Why should we take you seriously?
LikeLike
Christopher, keep it simple. Tell us why justification by faith alone is wrong.
LikeLike
Chris: no, we won’t read the articles. When you talk with people in the flesh do you get overwhelmed and tell them to go to websites? Distill it, tell it, and consider the combox your liberty from the necessity to be thorough.
Bob, if you’d rather be a criminal defendant here than other countries go hug an attorney. if you mostly expect that purchased products will not maim you or poison you then embrace the upside of a law- saturated society. Politicians are powerless unless the people elect them and attorneys do nothing unless a client has hired them.
LikeLike
Susan — I’ll treat you to an advanced look at something I’m working on. You asked about “the sacraments”. Were you aware that the “change of substance” in “the Eucharist” that Roman Catholics think is “from the time of Christ” was actually introduced in the 4th century?
* * *
Roman Catholicism as a whole is a misinformation campaign of incredible proportions.
In my last blog post, on the topic of The Roman Catholic “Eucharist”: Accretions, Equivocations, and Anachronism, I cited Paul Bradshaw, a Professor of Liturgy at the University of Notre Dame, from his work “The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship” (Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ©1992, ©2002). Bradshaw, an Anglican, was very clear about the state of the evidence:
The kind of historical precision that Bradshaw is talking about is in sharp contrast to what some popular Roman Catholic writers are writing. For example, Edward Sri, in his “A Biblical Walk through the Mass” (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, ©2011) writes “From the time of the apostles, the Mass has been the central act of Christian Worship. For the Mass is nothing less than the celebration of the Eucharist that Jesus instituted at the Last Supper …” And Mike Aquilina, in his “The Mass of the Early Christians” (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division ©2001, 2007) writes “Some twenty years after Pentecost, Paul gave the Church of Corinth detailed instructions about how to conduct the Mass and how to understand it (see 1 Cor 10-11)” (pg 18).
Sri is “a nationally known Catholic speaker” who holds a PhD from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Aquilina, an acquaintance of mine from Pittsburgh, is now “author or editor of more than forty books on Catholic history, doctrine, and devotion. He is co-host, with Scott Hahn, of eight series that air on EWTN.”
So this kind of blatantly ahistorical nonsense gets spread widely among Roman Catholics. And some of us who get into discussions with Roman Catholics wonder sometimes how they get to be the way they are. (An old NTRMin acquaintance of ours use to be amazed that we’d have to tell Roman Catholics what Roman Catholicism actually teaches before we could refute it.)
Not only do these writers engage in gross anachronism and make a mockery of the actual historical record, but they “dumb-down” large segments of the more devout Roman Catholic population.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, relates that the first use of the term does not occur until the late fourth century:
(Incidentally, Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. (“The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology,” Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, © 1998, 2004 by the Order of St. Benedict. Edited by Robert J. Daily, S.J.) also pointed out that it was Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) whose “metabolic understanding of the change of the nature of the Eucharistic elements” was “a new concept” [late 4th century!] which led to the medieval doctrine of Transubstantiation (pg. 22).
The late “development” of these concepts is in contrast to a number of staples of earliest Christianity.
* * *
I can’t tell you how angry stuff like this makes me. And yet this kind of misinformation is common fare among Roman Catholics.
LikeLike
Christopher Lake: This is from one of your links:
The Church is invited to “become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children.”
Why doesn’t “The Church” (as Rome officially defines itself) “become more fully conscious of its own sins”?
LikeLike
Mitch,
I retract my comment on ALL attorneys.
It’s the plaintiff’s bar that resembles leeches residing in one’s underpants. Although when you get sued, the defense bar may be even more excited than the plaintiffs bar. We need a “loser pays all the lawyers” system to avoid frivolous lawsuits.
LikeLike
Christopher – I love all of you in Christ
Erik – At Old Life we allow people to be “annoyed with you in Christ”, too.
LikeLike
Christopher – the comments move here quite quickly!
Erik – Contra-Called-to-Communion where they move akin to snail mail that gets lost at the Hoboken sorting facility.
LikeLike
Christopher,
If you can’t answer basic questions about your religious faith in your own words is that not a problem?
You have a catechism, although with 3,000 questions using it as a source may admittedly be difficult.
I for one am probably not reading long articles that you can’t summarize. You need to summarize and own your own arguments or you don’t truly understand them.
LikeLike
Perhaps the most interesting part of Jason’s EWTN interview was when he was talking about how he became Reformed while serving as a missionary in Hungary for Calvary Chapel. The CC folks were hostile to Reformed Theology to the point that they cut Jason off and made him and his wife pay their own way home once he embraced it.
Jason is describing how he became convinced of the truth of Reformed Theology and the interviewer (another former Presbyterian minister) keeps asking questions about it, which Jason keeps answering. Finally Jason says something like, “I hope at the end there is still time to explain why I now disagree with this stuff.”
It’s like they had to stop themselves from celebrating Reformed theology on Catholic TV!
LikeLike
Everybody needs to watch this video.
A liberal Catholic confronts a young priest.
Notice how the priest repeatedly quotes Vatican II and explains its meaning while the liberal Catholic only refers to it and is unable to quote it in any way even though she claims two degrees in theology and taught theology for twenty years at a Catholic college.
Yeah, yeah. Liberalism is running rampant but everybody knows which way the wind is blowing.
There are liberals like this woman, who are completely confused and need a lot of help. Thank God for priests like Father Martin. The good news, and the good father says this, is that most of the young nuns and young priests want no part of these liberalism They are seeking orthodoxy. They are seeking truth (which this woman denies exists).
Google the LCWR. Notice how they’re all gray-haired pants suit wearing nuns. No youth. No life. They’re out. The conservative religious orders are meanwhile thriving.
God is work in the Catholic Church and its obvious to anybody paying attention.
In summary, there is liberalism in the Catholic Church, and we should be prepared to encounter it. Because of the charism Christ gave her, the Catholic Church will never lose a single dogma to liberalism in spite of the liberal element’s best efforts. The video above demonstrates it. The woman wants to ‘bring Vatican II’ – ah, but what does Vatican II say????
The gates of hell cannot prevail over the Church. To see liberals fighting to influence the Church away from her dogmas is to witness the effects of the war between the forces of heaven and the forces of evil. Liberalism should be expected in the Church that Christ founded, because Satan hates the Church and wishes to destroy her.
LikeLike
Susan: You may find this interesting. It seems to speak directly to your “who should I submit to” question, and basically makes the argument, “think for yourself”:
Brad Littlejohn on “The Search for Authority and the Fear of Difference”
http://swordandploughshare.com/main-blog/2013/12/30/the-search-for-authority-and-the-fear-of-difference
LikeLike
From John Bugay’s quote, “It’s time to stop taking responsibility for my own commitments and value judgments and let someone else make those difficult determinations for me.”
The gist is that Catholic become Catholics because we don’t think for ourselves and it’s better to make your own value judgments. Really, who needs a Pope and bishops and councils when I got me and my bible? Or, for that fact, who needs Reformed confessions?
Notice that this is exactly the same argument made by the liberal woman in the video I posted above. She doesn’t need the bishops or the Pope. She can listen to her ‘conscience.’
Is this what Presbyterians do John? I seem to recall that the membership vows of the PCA required an agreement to church discipline. Are OPC pastors still required to submit to a confessional standard??? How dare they! Don’t’ they know that submitting to such an authority is lazy! Don’t they know that they should not defer to the judgment of others!?!?
Heretics.
John, maybe you’d be more suited in a bible church where submitting to the elders is not required?
LikeLike
Sean Patrick, as usual, you both miss and misrepresent the gist of the article.
LikeLike
Um….
“In short, to wrap all of these wandering reflections up: the problem with many of us Protestants is not that we’re too Protestant—too individualistic, free-thinking, and anti-authority—but that we’re not Protestant enough. We’re afraid of the real “liberty of a Christian man” and so we take refuge in tight-knit coteries with respected gurus, official doctrine, and detailed (though often unspoken) rules of conduct. And this is because we don’t take our justification by faith seriously enough; we look for our justification in our adherence to doctrinal minutia, or to “a Christian worldview,” or to a comprehensively anti-worldly lifestyle, and accordingly we still live in fear, fear of a failure to conform, and cannot bring ourselves to live together as individuals, each exercising our own judgments in submission to the Word and in humble but lively debate with one another.”
“Exercising our own judgments in submission to the Word….”
Because submitting to Popes, Bishops, Councils, Creeds, Confessions, Elders, Presbyteries etc is “less laudable” than “exercising our own judgments…”
I got it loud and clear, John.
LikeLike
S. Patrick said:
????
???
!?!?
Muddy’s learned the hard way about people with dilated pupils and about people who use excessive punctuation. Do what you want but you’ve been warned. PS. That Cletus fellow keeps his punctuation under control.
This has been the Gravel Report.
LikeLike
We may exercise judgments because God gave us that capability.
Popes, Bishops, Councils, Creeds, Confessions, Elders, Presbyteries etc
It is a travesty to list these all together. Popes and bishops have been for centuries among the worst criminals on the face of the earth. Creeds have gotten things wrong, The Protestant Confessions, though they are the best attempt at understanding Christianity in history, can be improved upon. Elders and presbyteries are certainly good guides, and insofar as they advocate “submission to the Word”, they are certainly worthy of our respect.
Your problem is that you have never, ever been able to exercise discernment.
LikeLike
So which is it John?
I trust you don’t support that your pastor vowed to uphold the Westminster standards right?
And, you didn’t agree to submit to the elders of your church right?
I hope not. Wouldn’t want you to not be ‘discerning.’
LikeLike
PS
“We may exercise judgments because God gave us that capability.”
God also gave us the capabilty to submit to those that God has called to lead His Church. At least, the author of Hebrews thinks so at least:
Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you. – Heb 13:17
(I guess he forgot to add…’but be discerning and exersize your own judgements and if you think they’re wrong well, start your own church or go and submit to leaders that you agree with…)
LikeLike
Sean Patrick – The gist is that Catholic become Catholics because we don’t think for ourselves and it’s better to make your own value judgments. Really, who needs a Pope and bishops and councils when I got me and my bible? Or, for that fact, who needs Reformed confessions?
Notice that this is exactly the same argument made by the liberal woman in the video I posted above. She doesn’t need the bishops or the Pope. She can listen to her ‘conscience.’
Erik – Confessions can be challenged biblically by even the most insignificant member of a Presbyterian or Reformed church. Can the Magisterium?
LikeLike
Sean Patrick – “Exercising our own judgments in submission to the Word….”
Because submitting to Popes, Bishops, Councils, Creeds, Confessions, Elders, Presbyteries etc is “less laudable” than “exercising our own judgments…”
I got it loud and clear, John.
Erik – How did you come into the world? Alone
How will you go out of the world? Alone
When you stand in judgment how will you stand? Alone
Do you think you’ll be able to hide behind anyone else? Will your sins and errors be excused because you relied on X and they were wrong?
This is why you deceive yourself when you rely on anyone but Christ and his righteousness as revealed clearly in Scripture.
LikeLike
Sean Patrick,
Citing Hebrews 13 in support of the Roman Catholic Church’s claims is juvenile and question begging to the max. I expect better from the blog editor of Called to Communion. Send Tater over here to do those kind of apologetics. Back away from the keyboard before you do any more damage.
LikeLike
ZRIM,
I agree with most everything that you wrote. It definitely is misleading to name those in spiritual peril as brethren. Ecumenism and the vat 2 double speak in general is incredibly annoying for me personally. The art of speaking in code that could be taken as the orthodox truth or something completely heretical. A completely new spin on “politically correct”. I understand that protestants are considered “separated brethren” because they have been validly (perhaps fruitfully) baptized…. But it does seem that some other terminology would be better suited.
LikeLike
Erik and John B,
Why do you submit to the documents known as the New Testament? Seems kind of rigid don’t you think? Not very “think for your selfish” to submit to an ancient text written thousands of years ago and collected preserved by some of the “worst crooks in history”?
LikeLike
Kenneth, so you can understand the old life confusion. Bryan Cross, in response to this very same point and to wonder what then we’re called to, tells us that while we’re eternally kosher it’s simply a calling to a fuller embodiment and expression of the faith in this life. But you seem to suggest that we’re in peril in connection to eternal life. One can respect your answer as it resonates with Reformed otherworldly sensibilities, but what to do about Cross’s peace of Christ? I thought RCism solved these sorts of conundrums.
ps you’re yelling my name again.
ps Susan, mine was also an Oldsmobile man. Did yours also work in profanity the way other artists might work in oils or clay and in the heat of battle weave a tapestry of obscenity, that as far as you know is still hanging in space over Lake Michigan?
LikeLike
Kenneth, what kind of question are you asking of Erik and John? Did they say something that got you upset?
Do you know that many protestants believe the Bible to be the Word of God? Do we then need to explain further why, given that belief, we submit to the teaching handed to us there, and encourage others to do so as well?
Try reading the Westminster confession, Kenneth.
Perhaps somewhat unrelated, do you mind if I ask what kind of daily devotional you personally use? No pressure to answer, but I’m happy to go into what works for me personally, and for my family worship. Good to think about our habits around these times, perhaps, new years resolutions and all that jazz..
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Because it’s true and has never let me down. Rome’s claims ring false and have let a lot of people down in word & deed.
LikeLike
AB, I have a problem with new year’s resolutions, I’ve already taken up drinking and smoking and cussin’ and eating. So, anything I resolve ends up being a restraint which is reminiscent of Lent, which is of course a violation of my presbyterian and religious conscience, plus it doubles down on the bad memories of a misspent youth. So, I think it’s prolly better to just keep on keeping on, with little to no break in habits well entrenched.
LikeLike
Susan,
There is no biblical consensus amoung Protestants on whether or not infants should be baptized and you are equally hazy on how many times per moth communion should be served, to say nothing of the confusion about the real presence in the Eucharist( why’d you try to modernize it in the first place??). Can you see how it is that I’d be a bit untrusting of your ability to back up the resurrection? ( ” That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”).
There’s also no consensus among RC as to whether Mary died before her assumption, whether the papacy was formally instituted by Christ or whether it was a natural, inevitable, and organic development, to say nothing of the confusion as to whether V2 has made the RCC full-on universalistic. Can you see how it is that I’d be a bit untrusting of Rome’s ability to solve the problems you all tell me that it solves?
LikeLike
sean, ‘re: resolutions – we are of like mind. I’m not surprised we get all kinds of Cat-licks hanging out at oldlife. But something eventually has gotta give. It amazes me of their manner of speech around here. Trying anything worth trying, is all, speaking off the cuff and stuff..
A very un-happy new year to you and yours, in the warfare of Oldlife,
Andrew
LikeLike
Kenneth: Why do you submit to the documents known as the New Testament?
For this reason:
LikeLike
Sean, God is at work in the OPC and it’s obvious to anyone who is a Christian.
Do you find that convincing?
And your boosterism is plausible, why?
BTW, where is the peace of Bryan? I liked your sarcasm over at CTC, but it is hardly loving or logical.
LikeLike
Sean, is it a slow day at CTC or is Bryan also blocking your comments there?
LikeLike
ZRIM (I enjoy yelling),
couldn’t you be in peril precisely *because* you lack the full embodiment and expression of faith in this life? I don’t see my opinion being diametrically opposed to Mr. Cross.
LikeLike
Sean, you may be surprised and confused to learn that Roger Williams claimed liberty of conscience on his way out of Massachusetts to Rhode Island, because the Puritans, those radicals of private opinion, would not allow Williams to hold his views in their society. It turns out that Puritans, like most pre-modern Christians, believed that a truly free conscience was one rightly formed. For that reasons, Williams’ erronious views indicated that his conscience was not free.
So the real turning point for private opinions is not the Reformation but the revolutions of the 18th century in the U.S. and France. Now Rome opposed the freedom of conscience that political liberalism taught and did so with great gusto down until 1950 or so when the Vatican ran out of steam and Vatican 2 happened with its embrace of the modern world and religious freedom for everyone — even for the likes of Roger Williams.
So when you wire your view of private opinions to what the Vatican teaches, we can have this conversation. Strike that. A lay person popping off about Roman Catholicism is precisely what Vatican 2 made possible with its new understanding of church authority over conscience.
Say hello to modern Roman Catholicism.
LikeLike
kenloses, “Ecumenism and the vat 2 double speak in general is incredibly annoying for me personally.”
Be careful, Sean Patrick will accuse you of Protestantism — what with this having your personal annoyances so public.
LikeLike
Andrew B,
I was asking because they had seemed to suggest that submitting to authority was a sort of wimpy thing to be discouraged and that we should all just “think for yourself”. I’m wondering what criterea they used to deem each and every book of scripture as authoritative before ciphering through all the textual criticism, various manuscripts, etc. And arriving at a personal interpretation.
LikeLike
Erik,
so you believe the bible because it sounds good but the Church not so much? Nice. Sounds like reasonable criteria lol
LikeLike
Kenneth, the canon question is very complicated, (why just Google “Star Trek Canon,” for the wiki article, even those guys can’t get their story straight) but there are resources available for inquirers.
WCF chapter 1 puts into language our beliefs so marvelously. For me, my father and brother encouraged me to read my protestant bible, growing up as a fundie. God used that time I spent as a child. Coming to find John Calvin and WCF was a big deal for me. I never want to relativise Truth here by sharing like this. But the truth is, our standards are wonderful and worth much study by all.
Later.
LikeLike
Kenneth: I was asking because they had seemed to suggest that submitting to authority was a sort of wimpy thing to be discouraged and that we should all just “think for yourself”.
Submitting to authority is fine, but think about what authority you’re submitting to. There are different kinds of authority. If the authority to which you submit is criminal, then you want to stay away from that. If you’re in the military, you certainly want to follow their rules. You want to listen to your boss, who likely knows the job better than you do (though not in every case!)
There’s also a difference between respecting an authority and submitting to an authority.
I’m wondering what criterea they used to deem each and every book of scripture as authoritative before ciphering through all the textual criticism, various manuscripts, etc. And arriving at a personal interpretation.
There are several links to different articles that I wrote about Michael Kruger’s “Canon Revisited”. Since you asked the question, if you are sincerely interested, why not pop over there and do some reading? Of course, if you are merely asking a rhetorical question, yourself being in full possession of all the answers, then by all means, treat this as a footnote:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/canon-revisited-bit-of-housekeeping.html
Here’s a couple of key paragraphs:
LikeLike
DGHART,
poor Sean never got to learn what it means to be Catholic so I wouldn’t be surprised if he made that mistake. Every crises brings casualties. The sheep always suffer when the shepherd strays. Poor Sean. We will have to continue praying for his return.
LikeLike
John B,
Submitting to authority is fine, but think about what authority you’re submitting to. There are different kinds of authority. If the authority to which you submit is criminal, then you want to stay away from that. If you’re in the military, you certainly want to follow their rules. You want to listen to your boss, who likely knows the job better than you do (though not in every case!)
There’s also a difference between respecting an authority and submitting to an authority.
So then you would agree that if an authority warrants our submission we should conform our opinion and will to closer resemble the teachings/commands of said authority? You have apparently ruled out the RCC as such an authority. Why do you submit to the book of Philemon? The book of Deuteronomy? Numbers? Hebrews? James? Are these works really so majestic that they have compelled you to let go of that “think for you selfness” that you cherish so? What criteria do you consider before submission to any given authority? You will remember CvD gave some reasonable criteria (claims and coherence basically) what do you consider?
If I want to know what Krugers thoughts are I will go read his book. I want to know how YOU personally decided to submit to each of those 27 books individually and in all of their parts word for word. I want to know how YOU came to think of all 27 books as inerrant and God breathed. Specifically Philemon. Even if the early church thought that it was great who cares?! Why do you care today? Also if you have the time and inclination I am curious as to whether you “respect” the WCF or submit to it
LikeLike
Kenloses, what it means to be Catholic.
You’re doing a good job showing us by your demeanor. Between you and Sean P, donct fret. We’re doing fine on our side. But always come loiter with us at your every whim. I enjoy hearing from your tribe.
Mopey out.
LikeLike
PS
JB is public with his personal story at group blog reformation 500. I encourage you to search it out, I was very encouraged by his sharing like that. It’s more than I do as an officer subscribing to the WCF in the OPC.
Regards..
LikeLike
Bamboozled Kenneth, I think Darryl was referring to Sean Patrick. And if he wasn’t, no worries, I know where he works. ‘Cuz that’s how I roll. Word to your momma.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The argument you are trying to make is old hat and has been dealt with here before:
http://literatecomments.com/2012/10/29/why-roman-catholicism-is-not-the-solution-to-the-problem-of-sola-scriptura-michael-krugers-canon-revisited-on-the-jason-stellman-bryan-cross-problem/
“Recently there has been a dustup in the conservative Presbyterian & Reformed blogosphere over the defection of Reformed minister Jason Stellman to Roman Catholicism and the Called to Communion group of Catholic men who used to be Reformed (many of them Reformed ministers). One of the factors that apparently led to Stellman’s conversion was also a factor that led to the conversion of CTC ringleader Bryan Cross — an inability to defend the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura against attack. At one point Cross apparently had some Mormons come to his door and this interaction and inability to defend the doctrine started him on the road to Rome.
My intent in this post is not to defend Sola Scriptura, but merely to show that the Roman Catholic solution to the problem is ultimately no more satisfying than the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura to the mind that demands absolute certainty. In future posts I hope to make the same case regarding atheists who reject theism due to this same quest for absolute certainty.
My source for my post is pages 38-48 of Michael J. Kruger’s “Canon Revisted – Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books”. Kruger is professor of New Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, N.C.
In the first chapter of his book Kruger explores the idea of the “Canon as Community Determined”. On page 29 Kruger defines this idea as follows: “As a general description, community-determined approaches view the canon as something that is, in some sense, established or constituted by the people – either individually or corporately – who have received these books as Scripture. Canonicity is viewed not as something inherent to any set of books, but as ‘something officially or authoritatively imposed upon certain literature.’ Thus a ‘canon’ does not exist until there is some sort of response from the community. Simply put, it is the result of actions and/or experiences of Christians.” Kruger views the Roman Catholic model as a subset of this idea of “Canon as Community Determined”.
Kruger begins his description of the Roman Catholic model by saying, “Roman Catholicism denies that ultimate authority exists in the Scriptures alone (sola scriptura) and has consequently adopted the well-known trifold authority structure that includes Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium (the church’s teaching authority). The key component in this trifold authority is the Magisterium itself, which is the authoritative teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church, primarily manifested in the pope and his bishops. Although the Magisterium is presented as only one of three sources of authority, it is distinguished by the fact that it alone has the right to interpret Scripture and tradition, and, more importantly, it has the sole authority to define what writings constitute Scripture and tradition in the first place.”
He goes on: “The implications of this approach on the question of canon become immediately clear. When faced with the dilemma of how we know which books should be in or out of the canon, the Roman Catholic model claims a quite simple solution. As H.J. Adriaanse observes, ‘Catholic Theology…has solved the canon problem with a plea to the authority of the Church. Thus, the canon is ultimately community determined. The fundamental challenge from Roman Catholicism is that in order to have an infallible Scripture, we need to have an infallible guide (namely the church) to tell us what is, and what is not, Scripture.”
The footnote for this last sentence is interesting in light of my aims: “This argument is the cornerstone for modern Roman Catholic apologetics. E.G. Scott Hahn and Kimberly Hahn, ‘Rome Sweet Home’, David Currie, ‘Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic’, Patrick Madrid, ed., ‘Surprised by Truth’”.
Kruger goes on: “As Karl Rahner asserts, ‘[Scripture] exists because the church exists.’ Thus, it is argued, the Protestant claim of sola scriptura is inevitably hollow – you cannot have Scripture as the ultimate authority if you have no certain way of knowing what Scripture is. One needs an external source of authority, outside the Bible, in order to know what should be included in the Bible. Karl Keating declares, ‘The Catholic believes in inspiration because the Church tells him so.’ The sixteenth-century Roman Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, papal legate to the Council of Trent, put it more bluntly: ‘The Scriptures have only as much force as the fables of Aesop, if destitute of the authority of the Church.’”
Kruger goes on to give an evaluation of all this in the next section. He begins by conceding that “the Roman Catholic model rightly captures certain aspects of canon. Indeed, the church’s historical reception of these books plays an important role in our conviction that they are from God (though there are differences in how that role is construed). Moreover the willingness of Roman Catholics to acknowledge that the canonical process is not entirely human, but involves divine activity, is a refreshing alternative to the naturalistic approach so common in the historical-critical model (which he has discussed previously). That said, a number of historical and theological concerns about the Roman Catholic model remain, which we will attempt to briefly outline here.”
Kruger makes several good points in this section, but for now I want to focus on what he describes as “the most fundamental concern, namely, whether the Roman Catholic model, in some sense, makes the Scripture subordinate to the church. The answer to that question is revealed when we ask another question: How does the Roman Catholic Church establish its own infallible authority? If the Roman Catholic Church believes that infallible authorities (like the Scriptures) require external authentication, then to what authority does the church turn to establish the grounds for its own infallible authority? Here is where the Roman Catholic model runs into some difficulties. There are three options for how to answer this question:
(1) the church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by (and derived from) the Scriptures. But this proves to be rather vicious circular reasoning. If the Scriptures cannot be known and authenticated without the authority of the church, then you cannot establish the authority of the church on the basis of the Scriptures. You cannot have it both ways. Moreover, on an exegetical level, one would be hard-pressed to find much scriptural support for an infallible church (but we cannot enter into this question here).
(2) The church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by external evidence from the history of the church: the origins of the church, the character of the church, the progress of the church, and so forth. However, these are not infallible grounds by which the church’s infallibility could be established. In addition, the history of the Roman Church is not a pure one – the abuses, corruption, documented papal errors, and the like do not naturally lead one to conclude that the church is infallible regarding ‘faith and morals.’
(3) It seems that the only option left to the Catholic model is to declare that the church’s authority is self-authenticating and needs no external authority to validate it. Or, more bluntly put, we ought to believe in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic church because it says so. The Catholic Church, then, finds itself in the awkward place of having chided the Reformers for having a self-authenticating authority (sola scriptura), when all the while it has engaged in the very same activity by setting itself up as the self-authenticating authority (sola ecclesia). On the Catholic model, the Scripture’s own claims should not be received on their own authority, but apparently the church’s own claims should be received on their own authority. The Roman Catholic Church, functionally speaking, is committed to sola ecclesia.”
It seems that Stellman and Cross are in no more of a secure position than they were in before their conversions.”
LikeLike
If you are interested in learning more, here is a good discussion between Westminster Seminary California Professors W. Robert Godfrey & R. Scott Clark on “The Lure of Rome”.
http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/the-lure-of-rome
LikeLike
Kenneth, I’m answering your other questions on Scripture, but here’s the link to the piece that Andrew was talking about:
http://reformation500.com/about/
LikeLike
Guys,
have a happy new year! I’ll answer all comments addressed to me tomorrow on my day off! Take care everyone
LikeLike
couldn’t you be in peril precisely *because* you lack the full embodiment and expression of faith in this life? I don’t see my opinion being diametrically opposed to Mr. Cross.
Kenenth, not per Cross (and others) who has indicated that to remain separated from the RCC by birth and thus no fault of one’s own. Only is he in peril who is born in the RCC and separates himself. So those of us born, baptized and remaining Protestant are kosher and to stay in this condition is merely to deprive ourselves of a fuller spiritual life in the here and now. After that, maybe a spell in the purge factory but then onto the beatific vision, along with the other do-gooders that don’t even confess Christian.
LikeLike
Zrim,
if that is Bryans position he is in error. Such would place ignorance as the primary means of salvation. Why even bother with the Church? It is not IMPOSSIBLE for men outside the Church to be saved but that doesn’t make it likely.
LikeLike
Sean the good, right. I was referring to Sean the not so good.
LikeLike
Kenloses, hope you find a winner party.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
It is not IMPOSSIBLE for men outside the Church to be saved but that doesn’t make it likely.
That’s not what Karl Rahner thought. And he was a driving theologian behind that semi-infallible V2 that you hate even while trying to pretend nothing changed there.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 30, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
#neo-Calvinism
Yes, I knew of your distaste for “neo-Calvinists,” to which I often reply [unrequitedly], Whose Calvinism is it anyway?
When you put the shoe on the other foot, Whose Catholicism is it anyway, the answer is pretty much “the Pope’s,” elected by a college of cardinals presumably guided by the Holy Spirit. The forces of liberalism, as Susan notes, do not seem to have the success that “liberal” Protestantism has had in taking over its churches.
Perhaps the most interesting story is how the “liberal” unitarians ended up taking over the churches of New England from the [Calvinist] Congregationalists. Many or most Boston churches from the Founding era are now in the hands of the successor Unitarian Universalist church, which doesn’t even officially believe in God.
see also
http://www.albertmohler.com/2008/08/26/from-mainline-to-sideline-the-death-of-protestant-america/
Nevertheless, understanding a “theological theory” of liberal Protestantism’s collapse is an even greater concern. The health of the church is a far greater concern than the health of the nation. The primary injury caused by mainline Protestant decline is not social but spiritual. These denominations once fueled the great missionary movement that carried the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Now, liberal Protestantism sees conversionist missions as an embarrassment. Committed to a radical doctrinal relativism, these denominations have served as poster children for virtually every theological fad and liberal proposal imaginable. Now, many of these denominations are involved in court fights to keep churches from leaving. The stream has indeed run dry.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 31, 2013 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
Kenneth,
It is not IMPOSSIBLE for men outside the Church to be saved but that doesn’t make it likely.
That’s not what Karl Rahner thought. And he was a driving theologian behind that semi-infallible V2 that you hate even while trying to pretend nothing changed there.
Semi-infallible? Is that like semi-pregnant?
LikeLike
Tom, bingo. No one can tell us what to make of Vat2, and our seminary boys at CtC barely mention it at all (one blog post with it in the title, one other blog post that Bryan doesn’t let my comments through on).
What’s a protestant to do?
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted December 31, 2013 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
Tom, bingo. No one can tell us what to make of Vat2, and our seminary boys at CtC barely mention it at all (one blog post with it in the title, one other blog post that Bryan doesn’t let my comments through on).
What’s a protestant to do?
What business is it of yours? Or as I’m fond of putting it, Whose Catholicism is it, anyway? Stick to putting your own heretics on trial, like this poor fellow.
http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/
;-P
LikeLike
Tom, they run a website looking to interact with species of human like I am. They make it my biz-nass.
But I sleep well at night, so sure. I’ll leave them be.
Adios.
LikeLike
Tom – Yes, I knew of your distaste for “neo-Calvinists,” to which I often reply [unrequitedly], Whose Calvinism is it anyway?
Erik – Since Neocalvinists are post-Kuyper (died in 1920), I’d say it ain’t theirs.
LikeLike
Kuyper in many ways formulated Calvinism in ways no one before him had. Neocalvinists took those formulations and ran with them. It might work in the Dutch ghetto, but not so much anywhere else.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted December 31, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
Tom, they run a website looking to interact with species of human like I am. They make it my biz-nass.
But I sleep well at night, so sure. I’ll leave them be.
Adios.
Goodbye, Mr. Hello-I-Must-Be-Going.
Actually, I was speaking of Vatican II more than your punking the ex-Calvinists. The argument by polemic such as cited by Erik Charter above
My intent in this post is not to defend Sola Scriptura, but merely to show that the Roman Catholic solution to the problem is ultimately no more satisfying than the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura to the mind that demands absolute certainty.
isn’t terribly interesting–the Catholic Church claims the Holy Spirit guides its magisterium, a “truth claim” that cannot be proved or disproved. To elide that central part of the question is dishonest.
As for their evangelism of Calvinists, I don’t see them troubling you here to go Tiber-swimming as much as defending their church from your attacks against it.
To business, aside from some bogus snark [calling Bryan Cross a “ringleader”], Michael J. Kruger is pretty even-handed:
True.
True. But you end up with the same circularity: How do you know the Bible itself is infallible, inerrant, the Word of God, etc.? The atheist complains you argue that “The Bible is true because the Bible tells me so!”
Further, does Jesus say he’s leaving a church behind, or a bible? I believe this was part of
He didn’t even have the circularity of the Bible “proving” sola scriptura, So too, besides “classical theism,”* how do the Abrahamic religions even know God exists? Because God told them so– Abram, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed–personally!
Don’t knock circularity. It’s not the last resort, it’s the first hurdle that must be cleared, non-contradiction.
______________
*Fideism vs. classical theism. Cool stuff.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-complex-god-with-god-complex.html
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted December 31, 2013 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
Kuyper in many ways formulated Calvinism in ways no one before him had. Neocalvinists took those formulations and ran with them. It might work in the Dutch ghetto, but not so much anywhere else.
Well, the thing is that “Calvinism”–more charitably, Reformed theology–doesn’t end with Calvin, who is not seen as infallible. Reformed theology is a theological tradition that develops, smooths out its rough edges, e.g., as we saw with the Puritans, went from intolerance to tolerance.
So the structural [formal] question is, When does Calvinism stop developing, when does Reformed theology stop reforming? There is no reliable guide, no authority to say “this far and no further.”
If the later developments in Reformed theology were fine and the writing and later revision of the Confessions are good and desirable, why not Kuyper’s?
[These are formal questions, not about the actual content of Calvin or Kuyper.]
LikeLike
Tom, how exactly are you, standing there on the sidelines, promoting the health of the church?
LikeLike
Tom, stop playing umpire. Roman Catholicism is as much Andrew’s business as Calvinism is yours.
LikeLike
Tom,
You wrote:
Jesus gave us both a doctrine of the church and of Scripture. More broadly speaking, cats and prots can agree that through Jesus and his ministry, we are given apostolic teaching:
So of course all of this needs an apologetic, theirs and ours. Nothing real ground breaking out here in blogdom (on either side) as far as I can see. Out here, people are just chatting. Just me, but the real learning takes place by the source documents, not the gloss out here applied by the blogmeisters. But I prefer Darryl’s over anyone else’s I have met so far. It might even seem that on this matter of taste, you and I might even agree.
Adios.
LikeLike
Tom,
Semi-infallible? Is that like semi-pregnant?
Kenneth whines about V2 being a council dominated by liberals with unfortunate language, but then when it is critiqued, he defends it by saying that “one day” they’ll figure it out and how it will all fit with what came before and that, anyway, it didn’t issue any new dogmatic teaching. Tell that to the liberals who embrace it as if it has.
Meanwhile, the CTC guys, when they address it, don’t speak of unfortunate language in it at all, the SSPXers show distrust of it, JPII and Benedict interpret the heck out of it to make salvation outside the church=no salvation outside the church, and Francis implements its call for a more conciliar, charism-of-the-laity approach.
Confused yet? I sure am. But I’m told Rome is the answer…
LikeLike
Tom – the Catholic Church claims the Holy Spirit guides its magisterium, a “truth claim” that cannot be proved or disproved.
Erik – So go over to Called to Communion and tell them their “paradigm” is not superior to ours. Maybe you can get your comment through.
I can’t complain today, though, since Jason let several of mine from last night through.
LikeLike
Tom – When does Calvinism stop developing, when does Reformed theology stop reforming? There is no reliable guide, no authority to say “this far and no further.”
Erik – When it crosses over from Biblical to delusional.
LikeLike
Erik,
First of all, I wasn’t making an argument. I wasn’t asking you what you thought of RCs as the solution to your epistemological problems. What I was asking was how YOU personally decided that each and every individual book of the bible was word for word inerrant and that you should submit yourself to its teaching. You can begin by explaining why you decided for your self that Philemon was inspired. Sure, the early church apparently thought it was valuable. But who cares? Those are all fallible human sources that also bought into all kinds of RC theology that you call corruption. I guess you might appeal to apostolic authorship… But then what of Luke? Mark? Acts? Why 2 and 3 Peter? Why include all the books of the NT that aren’t mentioned in the New? I want to know how it is that you have CERTAINTY in your canon.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Other than the Apocrypha, where do we disagree on the Canon?
How do you get around the circularity problem on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church that I point out in my post?
You really don’t need “certainty” in anything in life, just the conviction that one available alternative is better than another.
I don’t object to the Callers, or you, being Roman Catholic. Just your belief that Catholicism is somehow superior or more certain than Reformed theology. That’s just childish.
LikeLike
Erik
How does the Roman Catholic Church establish its own infallible authority? If the Roman Catholic Church believes that infallible authorities (like the Scriptures) require external authentication, then to what authority does the church turn to establish the grounds for its own infallible authority? Here is where the Roman Catholic model runs into some difficulties. There are three options for how to answer this question
Sola ecclesia alert! Here we go again with the same old bad responses. If the RC position can be boiled down to sola ecclesia then it is true that we suffer the same epistemological problems as you do…. But RCs don’t teach nor practice sola ecclesia and so the argument always fails.
(1) the church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by (and derived from) the Scriptures. But this proves to be rather vicious circular reasoning. If the Scriptures cannot be known and authenticated without the authority of the church, then you cannot establish the authority of the church on the basis of the Scriptures. You cannot have it both ways. Moreover, on an exegetical level, one would be hard-pressed to find much scriptural support for an infallible church (but we cannot enter into this question here).
I do not claim that we can have *no idea* what the scriptures are without authoritative authentication. I merely claim that we can not have *certainty* of the canon without.outside authoritative authentication. We can begin by reading the scriptures as mere historical documents (with the assumption that they are authored by men and fallible) and read Christs words to Peter and the apostles. We could deduce naturally that Jesus founded a Church and gave to His Church His own voice and authority. If we became convinced that Christ rose from the dead and that His claims to divinity are true then by good and natural consequence those who still speak with His voice would be infallible and authoritative.Now I am convinced with historical documents but am I certain? Not unless those documents are infallible! However, the Church (that speaks with Christs authority and voice) authenticates them as infallible. The Church authenticates a PRECISE number of books as infallible. Books that I may not have included on my own. Hence, now, although I am not infallible can be certain of an infallible canon.
(2) The church could claim that its infallible authority is authenticated by external evidence from the history of the church: the origins of the church, the character of the church, the progress of the church, and so forth. However, these are not infallible grounds by which the church’s infallibility could be established. In addition, the history of the Roman Church is not a pure one – the abuses, corruption, documented papal errors, and the like do not naturally lead one to conclude that the church is infallible regarding ‘faith and morals.’
The Tradition of the Church IS an infallible grounds by which the Churches infallibility can be established. This infallible Tradition is established by scripture and the Church. Scripture tells us that it exists and the Church tells us where to find it (the universal consent of the fathers). The early fathers unanimously held to a belief in apostolic succession which was used to identify who the Church was. I can read the historical documents of all those claiming to be the “church” after Christ and come to the conclusion that they thought themselves to be identified through apostolic succession and authoritative as such… But can I be certain of these things? As the author you cite says not if they are fallible traditions. But if they are infallible…. And I am certain this is the case… Now we have another good grounds for certainty in the Church and certainty in the canon. These two bring certainty to Tradition. Instead of a circular argument (that sola scriptura enjoys) we have a spiral argument.
(3) It seems that the only option left to the Catholic model is to declare that the church’s authority is self-authenticating and needs no external authority to validate it. Or, more bluntly put, we ought to believe in the infallibility of the Roman Catholic church because it says so. The Catholic Church, then, finds itself in the awkward place of having chided the Reformers for having a self-authenticating authority (sola scriptura), when all the while it has engaged in the very same activity by setting itself up as the self-authenticating authority (sola ecclesia). On the Catholic model, the Scripture’s own claims should not be received on their own authority, but apparently the church’s own claims should be received on their own authority. The Roman Catholic Church, functionally speaking, is committed to sola ecclesia.”
allow me to present an original argument that disproves sola ecclesia.
SOLA ECCLESIA
1. The Church tells you what scripture is
2. The Church tell you what Tradition is
3. The Church claims itself to be infallible and necessary for salvation
4. The Church alone is your authority.
Tradition Alone
1. Tradition tells you what scripture is
2. Tradition tells you who the Church is (Apostolic succession)
3. Tradition claims to be the infallible life of the Church and “lens” through which all things are viewed
4. Tradition is your only authority
why do both of these work? Why could I do another syllogism for sola scriptura? Because all three legs of authority recognize and authenticate the others. It is a “spiral” argument. All three parts are equally essential in recognizing and reinforcing the others.
It seems that Stellman and Cross are in no more of a secure position than they were in before their conversions.”
a telling statement that essentially admits that NO PROTESTANT can ever have certainty of canon.
LikeLike
Robert,
(long sigh…..) here we go again….
That’s not what Karl Rahner thought. And he was a driving theologian behind that semi-infallible V2 that you hate even while trying to pretend nothing changed there.
who cares what Karl thought? The Church is clear that if the ordinary magesterium is ever unclear that we should fall back to previous declarations that are more precise. If Vatican 2 issued imprecise declarations that are ambiguous we simply assume nothing has changed and reference prior teaching. What you want to do is take the ambiguous language and interpret it in the most liberal means imaginable to make a polemical argument. That’s fine. You are welcome to do that. But its not reality.
Confused yet? I sure am. But I’m told Rome is the answer…
who else would be the answer? Who was the answer in Acts 15? Who was the answer at Nicea? On down through history the Church has always been the answer. It is ultimately not up to lay ministries and individuals to decide such things. When controversy arises the Church is the mechanism that decides the issue. We await Her decision.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Welcome to fundamentalism.
LikeLike
Kenloses, but your argument is premised on a Cartesian quest for certainty. Who cares about certainty? And if you think you have it, think again about Bob in Big Kahuna.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The chink in your armor is when you say:
“We could deduce naturally that Jesus founded a Church and gave to His Church His own voice and authority”
Who is “we” and what does “deducing naturally” have to do with certainty?
Linking Jesus’ words to Peter with the Roman Catholic Church is your faith-based contention and the root of “sola ecclesia”. You can’t get around it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Who cares about certainty?”
I’m hearing this often, so I’m not very shocked to hear it from you. I don’t understand what you mean because you say such a thing and then turn around and tell us *with certainty* that Christianity doesn’t need a magisterial moral and teaching authority. This is what John Bugay is doing too, and it makes no sense. It proves that Protestantism can’t get behind anything it propagates. When a Protestant speaks any Christian truth, it is only a true truth because it initially came from the true Church which is guided by the one God who is giving His Church through His one Spirit a guarantor of His message to mankind; otherwise you are right….there isn’t any certainty about what constitues “truth”. What a dismal state.Hopefully your readers will see the selective skepticism. It’s as clear as daylight that sola scriptura is self defeating, so the only right course it to go in search of the right Church, if you plan to remain Christian at all.
Maybe you missed this interchange between Robert and Jonathan Prejean:
Robert: “”It seems to me that in the final analysis, the RC confidence in the church must rest something similar—the self-authenticating nature of the church—because if you’re depending on something else to authenticate it for you, that something else would be your final authority.”
Jonathan: “No, it wouldn’t. Final in this context doesn’t mean epistemic finality but normative finality. In other words, you’re confusing how I know who has the authority with what authority they have. I can perform ordinary inquiry to figure out who the government is based on the ordinary motives of credibility. That goes for divine authority or human authority. But I have no ordinary means to assess whether a text is inspired or has plenary inerrancy; I would have to accept those conclusion based on blind faith, since there is no divine authority certifying them. There’s no reasonable way to cut out the middleman; even if one is relying on Christ’s authority, that government must still be around for you to submit to it normatively.
That’s the same reason why we wouldn’t submit to laws of the Confederate States of America, for example. There’s nothing inherent in the laws that says they aren’t normatively binding. Rather, the way we know that they aren’t binding is that no government recognizes them. A law with no corresponding government is void. So unless Christ established a normative government with His own authority, His laws commanding obedience were dead letters on arrival, and Christianity should have ended on the death of the last Apostle.
So the revelation of Christ was, in part, a revelation of the Church, which was the divine authority, the divine system of salvation, the divine religion. The Scriptures, even the Old Testament Scriptures, take their authority as part of that structure. That is why sola scriptura devolves into sol scriptura, no authority, because there’s no coherent way to affirm Scriptural authority except on the authority of the Church. And the Church in turn is rooted on the revelation of the Incarnation; its structure is based on the participation in divine activities established in the Incarnation.”
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted January 1, 2014 at 8:06 am | Permalink
Tom, stop playing umpire. Roman Catholicism is as much Andrew’s business as Calvinism is yours.
Too much hitting below the belt around here NOT to play umpire. Unless the game is clean, nothing can be learned by
you, me or anybody else.I’m not sure I want to attack Calvinism per se the way you attack Catholicism: I’m not drawn to polemics. But if I did, it would be straight up.
http://trinities.org/blog/archives/4701
LikeLike
Susan – I don’t understand what you mean because you say such a thing and then turn around and tell us *with certainty* that Christianity doesn’t need a magisterial moral and teaching authority.
Erik – Where do you see Hart say that?
LikeLike
Susan – When a Protestant speaks any Christian truth, it is only a true truth because it initially came from the true Church which is guided by the one God who is giving His Church through His one Spirit a guarantor of His message to mankind
Erik – true truth?
LikeLike
Susan, you need to study philosophy (as if I don’t need the same counsel). But if you thought at all about the dangers of Cartesianism, you might actually modify your bluster about certainty. And if you studied history, and the era of three popes, your faith that rests in certainty would be gone. How do you know the council chose the right pope? Prove it. With certainty! And show your work!!
Some could say that your taking Rome’s claims of authority with certainty only makes you ready to believe the Mormons’ executive apostle. I believe the Mormon elders have a lot of charism underwriting their structures.
LikeLike
Susan,
You and Jonathan have the same problem as Kenneth.
You have to presume what you need to prove. Your reasoning is as circular as ours.
LikeLike
You could make the same arguments about human government as you are making about church government. How can we have government of the people since the people disagree? We have to have a totalitarian dictator. Somehow the roads get maintained and my income tax check gets cashed, though.
LikeLike
DG and Erik,
literally both dodged everything that I just wrote. At first the challenge is “but you are no better off than us with canon” and then immediately we shift to “who cares about certainty”? Lol ooooook apparently you all did right before I gave my response.
Who is “we” and what does “deducing naturally” have to do with certainty?
“we” = all the saints of history
“deducing naturally”= Is how one can have certainty but not infallibility.
Learn from Cardinal Newman
LikeLike
Tom, butch up.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s like whenever an NFL team scores a touchdown it’s because they are following the example of the Philadelphia Eagles.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 1, 2014 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Tom – the Catholic Church claims the Holy Spirit guides its magisterium, a “truth claim” that cannot be proved or disproved.
Erik – So go over to Called to Communion and tell them their “paradigm” is not superior to ours.Maybe you can get your comment through.
I can’t complain today, though, since Jason let several of mine from last night through.
Then feel free to use my observation. I’m just here to spread clarity, fairness, and my customary good cheer.
Tom – When does Calvinism stop developing, when does Reformed theology stop reforming? There is no reliable guide, no authority to say “this far and no further.”
Erik – When it crosses over from Biblical to delusional.
You realize of course that that’s in YOUR judgment. Solo scriptura, as Susan called it [the internet says it’s a criticism from somebody named Mathison].
Using the analogy of DNA and the telomeres, Protestantism’s inability to consistently reproduce itself — its tendency to fragmentation and theological innovations — seems to mirror some kind of unraveling of its genetic code. In this paper I argue that it is sola scriptura that is the underlying cause of Protestantism’s hermeneutical chaos. In the early Church the Bible and Holy Tradition were seen as forming a unified whole. Holy Tradition safeguarded the Bible by providing a proper and consistent interpretation — very much in the same way telomeres ensured consistent reproduction by protecting the integrity of the DNA. In contrast to the patristic regula fidei, the Protestant Reformers proclaimed Scripture alone to be the “only rule of faith and practice” (Osterhaven 1984:962). Scripture became detached from Tradition. When it discarded Holy Tradition as binding and authoritative, Protestantism threw out the basis for a consistent and proper reading of Scripture (#2). Thus, Protestantism’s sola scriptura has resulted in its DNA code (the Bible) being stripped of its telomeres (Holy Tradition).
http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-scriptura-part-4-of-4/
An interesting argument, basically that Protestantism is idiosyncratic, that each generation starts over again. And of course “liberal” Protestant has taken over its churches today, which no longer resemble the churches of the Reformers. A “neo-“Calvinism is inevitable, a “neo-“Catholicism is impossible.
[Although you argue Vatican II is neo-Catholicism. But you’re going to have to learn a lot more about it to make that charge stick. Even within Catholicism, whether Vat II was a substantive change or just a reform is not clear.]
LikeLike
“My Cousin Vinny” is must-see for anyone doing apologetics with Catholics:
LikeLike
DG,
in philosophy we follow Thomas…. Not Descartes. I have studied philosophy quite extensively and am confident in the veracity of my argument. If you want to critique what I wrote please feel free I welcome the opportunity.
Erik,
OH YEAH! And we are still waiting for that explanation on Philemon, James, Luke, and Acts.
What made you decide those were word for word inerrant and infallible? What criteria was considered? I’m gonna chase you guys all around with this until someone mans up and gives an answer. I responded to your challenge. You left it untouched. OK cool. Now lets hear your answer
LikeLike
Tom – You realize of course that that’s in YOUR judgment
Erik – This from Pope Tom and his church of one.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I admit that I do need lessons in logic, but I also have to deal with a dilema that is staring me in the face and that is, given that Christianity as a whole is split and holds varying beliefs, how do I find out all that counts as orthodoxy. I didn’t want to be put in a ecclesial consumerism kind of position, but alas without an authority that is exactly where everyone of us , who want to know what is within the pale of orthodoxy( thank you CRI), is placed.
Am wrong but doesn’t your “there is no certainty” neutralize any further critique?That sounds like Kantianism to me. Again, I do need more philosophy but yours brings the quest for truth to a full stop. It’s akin to “there is no truth”, at lease, I think it does:)
Susan
LikeLike
Kenneth – OH YEAH! And we are still waiting for that explanation on Philemon, James, Luke, and Acts.
Erik – They have divine qualities, apostolic origin, and corporate reception. Duh. You have no smoking gun here and your problem is seeking a smoking gun. You are trapped by your own fundamentalism.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted January 1, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
Tom, butch up.
OK. First, you don’t really believe the era of the 3 popes is a probative argument that the Catholic Church’s claim to true apostolic succession is invalid. You just throw any [spaghetti] at the wall you find handy. Such is the way of polemics–one doesn’t need a thesis, just to get a lucky punch in.
As I said, if both sides play grenade toss, rubbing each other’s noses in their history, that’s Mutually Assured Destruction, and the last man standing is probably Eastern Orthodox.
Actually, it’s a live argument that the non-Eucharistic/non-sacramental Protestant sects are farther from Catholic [Roman or Greek rite], Anglicanism and Lutheranism than the latter are from each other. “Protestantism” would therefore be a bogus concept–meaning not much more than “not-Catholic”*—and your entire polemic collapses, pushing against a wall that’s not really there. Your separation from Catholicism is little more or less significant than your separation from say, Anglicanism, the Eastern Orthodox from the Roman rite.
[What’s with that “kenloses” business anyway?]
________
*See also the link above, which notes that “Protestantism” is far from unanimous or even coherent on the interpretation of scripture as the generations go on. Some sects have the Eucharist, others reject it in any but the most symbolic form.
LikeLike
Susan,
My fear is that you’ve been sold a bill of goods by guys like Kenneth, Jason Stellman, Bryan Cross, et. al. and think you have “certainty” where no such certainty exists. Meanwhile you are presumably not worshipping with your own family — a high price to pay indeed.
If you have faith in Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, find a church where the Scriptures are faithfully taught. Be a Berean and compare what you are taught to the Scriptures. There will be no perfect knowledge of divine things in this life. Perhaps aim a little lower, rely on Christ, and by all means continue to think about these things, preferably in a sound Presbyterian or Reformed Church.
LikeLike
Tom – OK. First, you don’t really believe the era of the 3 popes is a probative argument that the Catholic Church’s claim to true apostolic succession is invalid.
Erik – OK, defend three popes at one time.
If you defend the RCC, but not enough to join it, attend mass, receive the Eucharist, do confession, etc. how is your testimony about her relevant? By not doing these things you fall under her condemnation, yet you don’t care enough to do them, which shows that you yourself do not really believe what she teaches. How do we take you seriously?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 1, 2014 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
Tom – You realize of course that that’s in YOUR judgment
Erik – This from Pope Tom and his church of one.
Ad hom. AND untrue. My objections are formal–I make no truth claims, don’t umpire them. Your “sola scriptura” objections assume you’re interpreting scripture correctly, what is Biblical and what is “delusional.” As we see above, absent a magisterium, the definitions of what is “delusional” are quite idiosyncratic, all over the map.
TULIP, for instance, quite the minority in Christian thought. “Delusional” and unBiblical–by your definition–in the eyes of the vast majority of Christians.
[I’m not sure you’re getting the difference between formal arguments and substantive ones, and that’s where a lot of the fog comes from. On the truth claim level, TULIP could be entirely the Truth, even if your explanations of it are faulty.]
LikeLike
Tom,
Following your own M.O. you could go onto show us how Islam is internally consistent, Buddhism is internally consistent, Mormonism is internally consistent, Bahai is internally consstent, ad nauseum.
So what?
Why waste your time and our time?
Relativism becomes tedious and boring pretty quickly, as does someone who thinks they’re above it all.
LikeLike
Tom,
I think what it comes down to is you’re resentful of anyone who thinks they “have answers” and are at all forceful about it. You think it’s your job to put them in their place.
Your weak spot is Catholicism, though, either because your mom was Catholic, you grew up Catholic, or you’ve run in conservative circles where Catholics are prevalent and respected.
You get free reign here since Hart is no censor. You can’t do what you do here at Called to Communion, or Baylyblog, or the other blog that they ran you out of. Just don’t abuse the privilege is all I would say.
LikeLike
Tom – As we see above, absent a magisterium, the definitions of what is “delusional” are quite idiosyncratic, all over the map.
Erik – Agreed that they are all over the map.
“A Magisterium” doesn’t solve the problem, though, unless you can prove with certainty that said magisterium has the authority it claims.
Unlike you I have no problem making a judgment, stating an opinion, or taking a side.
LikeLike
Erik,
And if I told you that my own study of scripture has led me to the Catholic Church it wouldn’t hold water for you, so what good is sola scriptura if I have to convince a sola scripturist what the sciptures say? By what authority can you dispute my interpretation?
As for my family life, it is a sad thing, brought to us all by Protestant schism. But I have found the Pearl of Great Price and I wouldn’t trade that for anything. It is better to obey God than man.
WE BELIEVE
166 Faith is a personal act – the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. Our love for Jesus and for our neighbor impels us to speak to others about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.
167 “I believe” (Apostles’ Creed) is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer, principally during Baptism. “We believe” (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) is the faith of the Church confessed by the bishops assembled in council or more generally by the liturgical assembly of believers. “I believe” is also the Church, our mother, responding to God by faith as she teaches us to say both “I believe” and “We believe”.
I. “LORD, LOOK UPON THE FAITH OF YOUR CHURCH”
168 It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: “Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you”, as we sing in the hymn “Te Deum”; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: “I believe”, “We believe”. It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” And the answer is: “Faith.” “What does faith offer you?” “Eternal life.”54
169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.”55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.
Goodbye, Erik, I’m done chatting for today. I was at a New Year’s Eve Party with a bunch of livey and very loving Prots( includ. my former pastor) and on the way out I missed a step, fell on my knee and so have been stuck in bed all day.
Susan
LikeLike
Tom,
If you announced that you had (returned) to the Roman Catholic Church, were in full communion, and came here and argued forcefully for Catholicism I would actually applaud that.
It would be more coherent than what you are doing.
LikeLike
Susan – And if I told you that my own study of scripture has led me to the Catholic Church it wouldn’t hold water for you, so what good is sola scriptura if I have to convince a sola scripturist what the sciptures say?
Erik – You never know until we go passage by passage.
The Catholic Catechism badly needs an editor. It reads like a very long, tedious Hallmark card.
Sorry you hurt your knee. I hurt my back a week and a half ago and it’s finally better. Getting old sucks.
LikeLike
Certainty, schmertainty. Even Bryan capitulates to supernatural intervention. Certain of what? Your MOC never goes beyond reasonableness that then allows for noumenal truth and the fideistic assurance therein. You guys in spouting epistemological certainty, never successfully bridge the gap to your faith claims outside Kantian leaps. So, which is easier to believe, the perspicuity of RC tradition and ongoing development or a shared inscripturated apostolic tradition. Trying to paint scriptural exegesis as non-perspicuous or even inconclusive in favor of the perspicuity or conclusiveness of reconciling various ecclesial documents, replete with historical circumstances, corruption and DEVELOPMENT by means of an interpretive HOC, is somehow reasonable or more reliable? Come on. That’s just pollyanna through and through. I’ll take eyewitness testimony and verified historical antiquity over centuries removed development, all day, every day and twice on sunday. Subjugate your tradition to inscripturated apostolic tradition and the innate authority therein, then we can talk. The paradigm construct doesn’t explain the reality nor reconcile to the nature of divine authority. We walk by faith, not sight. And it is possible to push your piety and fealty beyond what’s prescribed or fitting of Imago Dei creatures. See, there’s your nod to Thomism/aristotelian. Never say I’m not ecumenical
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 1, 2014 at 3:32 pm | Permalink
Tom – OK. First, you don’t really believe the era of the 3 popes is a probative argument that the Catholic Church’s claim to true apostolic succession is invalid.
Erik – OK, defend three popes at one time.
If you defend the RCC, but not enough to join it, attend mass, receive the Eucharist, do confession, etc. how is your testimony about her relevant? By not doing these things you fall under her condemnation, yet you don’t care enough to do them, which shows that you yourself do not really believe what she teaches. How do we take you seriously?
You take me very seriously because my arguments and observations are valid.
And I’ll not tell you anything about myself because it’s used as a weapon when things get desperate. Asking Susan about her relationship with her father was like, whoa, dude.
As for the 3 popes thing, man is always free to disobey the will of God. It’s not even worth litigating the details*–it’s the same crappy argument, that if men screw up it invalidates the Church.
________
*http://www.papalartifacts.com/post/415
LikeLike
Re: OLTS designation “kenloses”
http://breakingbad.wikia.com/wiki/Ken
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 1, 2014 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Following your own M.O. you could go onto show us how Islam is internally consistent, Buddhism is internally consistent, Mormonism is internally consistent, Bahai is internally consstent, ad nauseum.
So what?
Why waste your time and our time?
Relativism becomes tedious and boring pretty quickly, as does someone who thinks they’re above it all.
Not really. Your [really, Darryl’s] attack on Catholicism is usually based on allegations of internal contradictions. You set the game. I’m not sure you’re very good at it.
Erik Charter
Posted January 1, 2014 at 3:45 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I think what it comes down to is you’re resentful of anyone who thinks they “have answers” and are at all forceful about it. You think it’s your job to put them in their place.
Not at all. I just dislike people trying to get away with unfair arguments and can’t help pointing out when they’re pulling a fast one. I don’t have a brief against fundies or Mormons or Islam. What can you say?
LikeLike
Andrew
Posted January 1, 2014 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
Re: OLTS designation “kenloses”
http://breakingbad.wikia.com/wiki/Ken
Whoa man. Before you do a victory dance, you have to win. Bad show, this.
LikeLike
Sean
“inscripturated apostolic tradition” There is where you go wrong. It’s a Protestant assumption to think the scriptures are the whole.
3 John 13-14
2 Thess. 2:15
What do I do about the scripture verse where Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans is mentioned? He encouraged the Colossians to read it and it would surely, since all scripture is profitable, have further illuminate my faith, but it’s not in the bible. ( Col 4:16).
” You guys in spouting epistemological certainty, never successfully bridge the gap to your faith claims outside Kantian leaps”
This isn’t true, every doctrine is gathered from scripture either explicity or implicity.
LikeLike
Tom – You take me very seriously because my arguments and observations are valid.
Erik – You made an argument?
I really don’t take you seriously, other than as a fellow person who deserves respect. but I would like to.
You need to make arguments besides: “You believe X, but someone else believes Y and here’s a link to prove that someone else believes Y”. That doesn’t really get us anywhere.
For instance, you don’t seem to like TULIP. So tell us why you think it’s not true.
LikeLike
Tom – As for the 3 popes thing, man is always free to disobey the will of God. It’s not even worth litigating the details*–it’s the same crappy argument, that if men screw up it invalidates the Church.
Erik – So how do we know they chose the right one? They had had bad men as pope before and since. If Roman Catholics want to use history to prove their claims about being one true church why is history that casts doubt upon their claims invalid?
LikeLike
Tom,
And why point to a Catholic apologetics site to resolve an historical question? Do you expect objective history from such a source? If you expect it there, why not at Old Life?
LikeLike
Susan – This isn’t true, every doctrine is gathered from scripture either explicity or implicity.
Erik – Purgatory? Selling indulgences? Marian doctrines? Give me the implicit scriptures.
In Unam Sanctam Boniface VIII used the story of Jesus telling Peter to put away his sword to justify the church being over the state. His focus? The fact that Jesus didn’t forbid Peter from having a sword ENTIRELY.
Once people start to interpret Scripture in that manner there is no limit to what they can make it say.
LikeLike
Susan,
What was the authority that Christ appealed to when critiquing the religious leaders of his day? I seem to recall that “It is written” mentioned when critiquing “traditions of men” throughout the gospels. Which council established Isaiah as an authority when John the Baptist preached from it? Lots of groups had lots of different interpretations of the scriptures (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc…) and the scope of what counted as scripture. Yet Jesus never engages in a debate about any of that. In the gospels he simply assumes that the scripture is clearly authoritative – no need of councils, magisterium, or a pope. Indeed, he used the scriptures to critique the OT equivalent of these institutions.
Now this doesn’t prove that we protestants are right about the pope, sola scriptura, etc… But it does show that the pope, councils, tradition, and magisterium are not necessary for scripture to operate authoritatively. I reject the foundationalism beloved by The Callers, so I have no need to build a philosophical artifice to make all this fit. If you need this in order to be confident in your beliefs you will be disappointed if you think to hard about it.
Given all that, you might appeal to the apparent unity of the roman church as “proof” of the need of the pope, magisterium, etc… But then you have turned to a more or less empirical question: who is more unified – all the various flavors of conservative protestants (defined say by the NAE) or the RCC – a communion that includes communicant members such as Gary Wills, Karl Rahner, Fr. McBrien as well as B&tCs, Neuhaus, and JPII. Indeed, Wills is quite critical of the priesthood and office of pope and Neuhaus is a universalist. Unity? Who should you believe? Wills is a pretty smart guy. So is Fr. McBrien. Evidently the magisterium isn’t perspicuous among the church’s intelligentsia, and the numbers above aren’t just a function of poor catechesis – there just isn’t much unity within your sect.
You might want to consider the lengths the RC (and EO church for that matter) had to go to to maintain unity (consider the treatment of Hus). It simply isn’t true that all was honky dory until Luther nailed up his 95 theses. The explosion of denominations has a lot more to do with religious freedom and US style consumerism (why don’t people complain about all the protestant sects in Sweden?) than philosophical implications of protestantism. It should be sobering to compare what is happening to the RC church among US citizens (it is dropping as fast as the mainline – hispanic immigration is bolstering the overall numbers, but these are poised to collapse in a generation). Why do protestants who leave their denomination to form new denominations count as schism but RCs who leave for nothing don’t?
Now none of this proves that we reformed protestants are right and the RC church is wrong. A positive case for the reformed faith is a different discussion…
LikeLike
Susan, just the marian dogmas as they developed in the 20th century, owe their elevation to pew practice over every other contrived supposition. Reliance upon an oral tradition that nobody can pinpoint but you are sure is preserved through an succession of persons who themselves knew nothing of infallibility or extraordinary charism is just so much wish fulfillment, and ‘wouldn’t it have made sense’ felt needs. Even from straight textual evaluation the reliability and historical veracity of what we have inscripturated is preeminent and unique and that’s before we touch on proclamations of the faithful.
I appreciate the coherence of the apologetic proposed but when it fails to explain either the historic information nor explain the community it proposes to inform much less render the fealty it’s authority claims for itself, from both an objective analysis and pastoral application, it’s a failure. Now if you want to lower the standards(infallibility) it wants to hold in reserve for itself, even as merely principled capacity that’s almost never exercised and awaits canon law judgement for the parsing and requisite obedience required even of ex-cathedra statements, then we can start making progress as to unity and points of agreement but an apologetic that stands or falls on a claim of infallibility as rendering it superior and necessary for all others to align itself with and begs off being brought before the standard of Holy writ for evaluation as question begging, is an ecclesiology that is foreign to a text, which itself brings apostolic witness to the bar for evaluation. Gal 1:8
LikeLike
sdb
“Lots of groups had lots of different interpretations of the scriptures (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc…) and the scope of what counted as scripture. **Yet Jesus never engages in a debate about any of that.”**
I need some clarification please: If there were lots of different groups with lots of intepretations, how did the covenantal people of God ( and later at the foundation of The Church;”And the Lord added to the church daily such as were being saved “) know that they were “the” covenantal people of God?
What was their intepretive norm, tradition or the OT writings? The reason I ask is because in Matt 23:2 Jesus says “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.…”
It looks to me like there was an authority to which the people were commanded to obey. Now if this authority were faithful to the scriptures, which were written prior to their lives, why didn’t Jesus tell the people to obey the scriptures?
Also, if they were to simply obey scripture and scripture legalized divorce(“Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?), why does Jesus say,” Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9″And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” ?
Was there an oral tradition permiting divorce or was the scripture mistaken?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 1, 2014 at 5:31 pm | Permalink
Tom,
And why point to a Catholic apologetics site to resolve an historical question? Do you expect objective history from such a source? If you expect it there, why not at Old Life?
You don’t seem to appreciate the structural difference between apologetics and polemics.
Polemics carries no burden of proof, it just tries to catch the other guy in an internal contradiction. If I find you boring, it’s a structural, not a substantive thing. I find affirmative argument–apologetics–far more worthy and interesting.
That’s the gist of my last 20 posts, and you don’t seem to be able to wrap your mind around the fundamental difference seeking error and seeking truth.
But just because you don’t get it–and some of your fellows simply won’t–it doesn’t mean I can write for other readers, so they know it’s not their imagination that there are techniques being employed to cheat the argument.
I’m reading the comments at
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/
and it’s fascinating–you read the complete shifting of the burden of proof
Well, anybody can play epistemological Immovable Object. Boring. You get the exact same play from an atheist. He sets the parameters of acceptable evidence, a bar you can never meet.
I really have no desire to repeat the discussions at CtoC–the participants know the tall weeds of the familiar Cat-Prot debate that’s been going on for 500 years now. I’m more interested in the formal dynamics, the tricks, and whatever actual substance lies beneath all the crap. If you are unable to take me seriously, the defect is yours.
LikeLike
sean,
“Reliance upon an oral tradition that nobody can pinpoint but you are sure is preserved through an succession of persons who themselves knew nothing of infallibility or extraordinary charism is just so much wish fulfillment, and ‘wouldn’t it have made sense’ felt needs.”
Why do you say that oral tradition cannot be pinpointed? If there is a Church and it has an oral tradition, all you got to do is ask what that oral tradition is.
Those succession of person had better know truth infallibly or it isn’t truth. Why do you call an extraordinary charism a felt need or wish fulfillment, when the Church( and scripture) says it is led by the Holy Spirit. But I understand your skepticism about supernatural things….Protestantism nearly made me an atheist. Religion wise I was on the border of agnosticism until thankfully I saw the claims of succession, a teaching and authoritative head, an instituition with longevity that preceded all of Protestantism, thereby filling all things which I had epistemic and ontological need. It’s a miracle.
Susan
LikeLike
Well, anybody can play epistemological Immovable Object. Boring. You get the exact same play from an atheist. He sets the parameters of acceptable evidence, a bar you can never meet.
I really have no desire to repeat the discussions at CtoC–the participants know the tall weeds of the familiar Cat-Prot debate that’s been going on for 500 years now. I’m more interested in the formal dynamics, the tricks, and whatever actual substance lies beneath all the crap. If you are unable to take me seriously, the defect is yours.
Mr. Goofy Glasses speaks the Truth. Too bad he can’t apply it to himself, the final skeptical arbiter of all things philosophical/theological. Like the papists, the skepticism only goes one way.
Cheers and a Happy New Years to all, including the skeptics and sophists alike.
LikeLike
Tom,
O.K. Just so long as you’re entertained. I hope your relationship with your wife doesn’t work that way…
LikeLike
Susan – Protestantism nearly made me an atheist. Religion wise I was on the border of agnosticism until thankfully I saw the claims of succession, a teaching and authoritative head, an instituition with longevity that preceded all of Protestantism, thereby filling all things which I had epistemic and ontological need. It’s a miracle.
Erik – Or a way station to atheism, once the balloon is popped. I hope not.
I have a friend (not a close one, but a guy I consider a friend) who is a renowned atheist. He started out as a Pentecostal child evangelist in the Southwest (not an evangelist to children, but an evangelist who also happened to be a child). He moved beyond this and tried other forms of Christianity, including Reformed theology for a time (he showed me some Hodge in his home library. If you think this Catholic apologetic will win him over on the basis of its pure, unquestionable logic & unquestionable historical veracity you’re not thinking straight. You are making a lot of assumptions based on faith, even if you don’t clearly see it yet. When you do, hold on to your seat.
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted January 1, 2014 at 7:47 pm | Permalink
Well, anybody can play epistemological Immovable Object. Boring. You get the exact same play from an atheist. He sets the parameters of acceptable evidence, a bar you can never meet.
I really have no desire to repeat the discussions at CtoC–the participants know the tall weeds of the familiar Cat-Prot debate that’s been going on for 500 years now. I’m more interested in the formal dynamics, the tricks, and whatever actual substance lies beneath all the crap. If you are unable to take me seriously, the defect is yours.
—-Mr. Goofy Glasses speaks the Truth. Too bad he can’t apply it to himself, the final skeptical arbiter of all things philosophical/theological. Like the papists, the skepticism only goes one way.
Cheers and a Happy New Years to all, including the skeptics and sophists alike.
The gratuitous ad hom aside, mebbe we’re getting somewhere.
_______
Erik Charter
Posted January 1, 2014 at 7:49 pm | Permalink
Tom,
O.K. Just so long as you’re entertained. I hope your relationship with your wife doesn’t work that way…
Now you’re using my marriage as a cudgel? Dude. Even the atheists don’t sink that low.
Erik Charter
Posted January 1, 2014 at 7:57 pm | Permalink
Susan – Protestantism nearly made me an atheist. Religion wise I was on the border of agnosticism until thankfully I saw the claims of succession, a teaching and authoritative head, an instituition with longevity that preceded all of Protestantism, thereby filling all things which I had epistemic and ontological need. It’s a miracle.
Erik – Or a way station to atheism, once the balloon is popped. I hope not.
I have a friend (not a close one, but a guy I consider a friend) who is a renowned atheist. He started out as a Pentecostal child evangelist in the Southwest (not an evangelist to children, but an evangelist who also happened to be a child). He moved beyond this and tried other forms of Christianity, including Reformed theology for a time (he showed me some Hodge in his home library. If you think this Catholic apologetic will win him over on the basis of its pure, unquestionable logic & unquestionable historical veracity you’re not thinking straight. You are making a lot of assumptions based on faith, even if you don’t clearly see it yet. When you do, hold on to your seat.
Quite true that its flaws have driven people away from Catholicism. Those who don’t reject theism completely seem to grab the branch of Calvinism or fundamentalism [or some combo of both—IOW not the liberal Protestant mainline] on their way over the cliff.
OTOH, I question Reformed theology’s ability to convert atheists.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html
This isn’t an inherent defect, but an antipathy to philosophical [specifically Aristotelian-Thomist] argument is a part of the Calvinist culture. But the arguments for classical theism are not just appealing, they’re quite solid. When I saw that Reformed fellow playing Immovable Object, demanding a sola scriptura justification for man’s participation in the divine, I thought, what a shame. Our consciousness itself, our ability to read and think and wonder–all necessary to hear the Gospel–is a First Thing. Starting at the beginning is a satisfying thing.
LikeLike
Erik,
I’ll tell you like I told Robert. If you can not cough up a coherent response to my defense of Roman Catholic epistemological superiority over and against sola scriptura and the imaginary sola ecclesia you should no longer go around slapping copy n pasted arguments from James White or Kruger that suggest as much. Especially if your opinion is “certainty schmertainty, who cares about that”. All things considered it doesn’t prove the reformed paradigm wrong. It just shows that you are truly left with nothing but self authenticating circular arguments to show the world you are right! Which at first glance wouldn’t seem likely if your sect had stumbled upon the lens best suited to view reality through.
As to your “apostolic origin, divine qualities, corporate reception,” that’s all very nice but refutable enough to cause more than an acceptable amount of doubt. Your willing to submit your “think for yourselfnish” on something so flimsy as that?
LikeLike
Susan:
“Protestantism nearly made me an atheist. Religion wise I was on the border of agnosticism until thankfully I saw the claims of succession, a teaching and authoritative head, an instituition with longevity that preceded all of Protestantism, thereby filling all things which I had epistemic and ontological need. It’s a miracle.”
Me: Susan, I did ask, I did partake, and understood probably better than 99% of cradles what that charism amounted to. Your requirement for a certainty that is more certain than inscripturated tradition, is you substituting your felt needs for what faith provides. The position of the beggar, proclaiming; ‘I believe, help my unbelief’ is the nature of the experience this side of glory. The tension you felt is the tension between belief and unbelief, thus the difficulty of doing better than Thomas, but also the discomfort that weans you off this age and leaves you in hope of another. There are many people who find christianity wanting, but re-engineering the expression to alleviate that tension so that you’re less restless, is different than discovering the truth. Cathartic religious revelations/discoveries are a dime a dozen and evangelicalism is overrun with them as well, and they can take rather sophisticated forms, from theonomy to papalotry
We all want to see and know rather than walk by faith. Immanentizing the eschaton is always a temptation.
Btw, on the tradition of Pharisees, you need to reconcile to this as well;
Matthew 15
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”[a] 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word[b] of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
Jesus was aware of the non-canonical teachings and found them deleterious to the discovery of Himself and an unworthy substitute for the word of God.
LikeLike
Erik,
You seem to be a really nice guy and so I believe your concern for me is legitimate. I don’t think I am making faith assumptions because the articles are within my religion. They cannot be disproved.
I can’t become atheist because my reason causes me to believe in a First Cause. After that I am able to believe in the historical evidence for Jesus. Beyond this most everything else that is, the mysterious part of our faith, I am taking on the testimony of other people who say that they knew Jesus and that He spoke the words attributed to him in the gospels, that He did things and said things to fulfill scripture; people who must of interviewed His mom ( and St. Joseph)to know about the Annuciation, the Visitation, the birth and the visit by the Magi, Simeon and Anna…
What is your friend’s obstacle to belief, do ya think? Logic and philosophy will not make your friend a Christian. He does have to have the gift of faith.
Happy New Year!
Susan
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I’ll tell you like I told Robert. If you can not cough up a coherent response to my defense of Roman Catholic epistemological superiority over and against sola scriptura and the imaginary sola ecclesia you should no longer go around slapping copy n pasted arguments from James White or Kruger that suggest as much.
Where was this again? I don’t remember seeing anything beyond the tradition and the Scripture point to the church. And a survey of church history proves that ain’t true when it comes to Romanism.
As long as the church defines Scripture and tradition—and it does in the RC paradigm—you have sola ecclesia. Cyprian protested Rome’s intervention in his diocese, which means Rome cannot have jurisdictional primacy according to Cyprian. Why is this part of Cyprian not tradition, hmm? What is the reason for that besides Rome has said its not. It’s certainly accepted as tradition in the East…
LikeLike
“I don’t think I am making faith assumptions because the articles are within my religion.
They cannot be disproved.”
Susan, is this the bottom line? Not trying to be snarky, but no one can disprove that aliens visited me tonight and, well, if aliens are in my religion….
LikeLike
Susan,
That’s the same reason why we wouldn’t submit to laws of the Confederate States of America, for example. There’s nothing inherent in the laws that says they aren’t normatively binding. Rather, the way we know that they aren’t binding is that no government recognizes them. A law with no corresponding government is void. So unless Christ established a normative government with His own authority, His laws commanding obedience were dead letters on arrival, and Christianity should have ended on the death of the last Apostle.
Be consistent. What is inherent in the Roman Magisterium that says it is binding that is lacking in Scripture? Scripture claims binding authority for itself no less than Rome does. Why do I accept Rome’s claims at face value and not Scripture’s? I’m still waiting for some RC to give me the external authority that corroborates Rome’s claims. All I get is crickets.
“inscripturated apostolic tradition” There is where you go wrong. It’s a Protestant assumption to think the scriptures are the whole.
3 John 13-14
2 Thess. 2:15
What do I do about the scripture verse where Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans is mentioned? He encouraged the Colossians to read it and it would surely, since all scripture is profitable, have further illuminate my faith, but it’s not in the bible. ( Col 4:16).
Susan, prove to us that what Paul is talking about in those above passages is something different and not found in the written Scriptures.
The letter to the Laodiceans, in all likelihood, is the letter to the Ephesians. Let’s assume that it’s not, however, why do we assume that every letter Paul wrote to every church was intended to be Scripture? You certainly don’t treat papal letters that way.
LikeLike
Sean,
“Susan, I did ask, I did partake, and understood probably better than 99% of cradles what that charism amounted to. Your requirement for a certainty that is more certain than inscripturated tradition, is you substituting your felt needs for what faith provides.”
I want to be careful and not accuse you of playing at polemics. But I don’t think you appreciate the gravity of the situation. You are acting like I can regect the RCC because something is unpalatable to my modern sensibilities. If this is why you dislike Catholicism then it is you, not me, who is operating on feelings.
Yes, the scripture does have doubtors who can still call Jesus, “Lord”. Now what about the verses where people are chided for their lack of faith.
“The tension you felt is the tension between belief and unbelief, thus the difficulty of doing better than Thomas, but also the discomfort that weans you off this age and leaves you in hope of another”
Thank you for your analysis, but I’m sure that you’re wrong. The tension I felt was more along the lines of an epistemic crisis, brought on by the differences in Protestantism and no way to know infalliibly what constituted Christian orthodoxy, not a letting go and living in the light of two ages. Besides, what do I know of another age if not through the testimony of The Church?
LikeLike
Robert,
As long as the church defines Scripture and tradition—and it does in the RC paradigm—you have sola ecclesia
Yes but what happens when I show that Tradition tells us who the Church is and what constitutes scripture? Then, apparently, we also somehow operate under Tradition Alone. This is the response you can never counter. Its a bullet proof sola ecclesia defeater. What’s annoying is that once I get past the “talking points” of various reformed interlocutors its like you all just press the reset button. No reformulating poor ideas. No adjustments. Just holding the same old battle lines without giving an inch. Even if you get pushed back off that line you just pretend it never happened the next day. This has always been Jasons annoyance with DGHART. Eduardo Mortara, Eduardo Mortara, to the grave all we can ever discuss is Eduardo Mortara. With you its post V2 liberalism, post v2 liberalism, sola ecclesia sola ecclesia. You should really try advancing the conversation
LikeLike
Oh and about Cyprian
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm
LikeLike
Susan – What is your friend’s obstacle to belief, do ya think? Logic and philosophy will not make your friend a Christian. He does have to have the gift of faith.
Erik – Now you sound like you’re reverting to Calvinism.
If I sound like a nice guy I’m really questioning your judgment.
You sound like a nice lady, too. I hope you stick around.
LikeLike
Tom,
I have no knowledge of the state of your marriage. If I did and it was not good I would l not make light of that here.
LikeLike
Kenneth thinking he’s chasing some fresh tail:
One element of the Catholic paradigm confirming another element confirming another element is circular. It doesn’t matter how many elements you add.
The only thing outside the paradigm that may convince a dispassionate observer is history, and the historical record is mixed, which is really all Hart tries to show here day after day.
We’re on equal footing.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted January 1, 2014 at 9:06 pm | Permalink
Susan,
That’s the same reason why we wouldn’t submit to laws of the Confederate States of America, for example. There’s nothing inherent in the laws that says they aren’t normatively binding. Rather, the way we know that they aren’t binding is that no government recognizes them. A law with no corresponding government is void. So unless Christ established a normative government with His own authority, His laws commanding obedience were dead letters on arrival, and Christianity should have ended on the death of the last Apostle.
Be consistent. What is inherent in the Roman Magisterium that says it is binding that is lacking in Scripture? Scripture claims binding authority for itself no less than Rome does. Why do I accept Rome’s claims at face value and not Scripture’s? I’m still waiting for some RC to give me the external authority that corroborates Rome’s claims. All I get is crickets.
Immovable Object game. What possible proof would satisfy you? If put under the same gun, you can’t even prove there’s a God, let alone a Son and Holy Spirit.
But since your bar–your own standard of proof– is sola scriptura, Catholicism justifies itself via “Thou art Peter,” Jesus explicitly establishing a church in that same sentence—against which hell cannot prevail, his promise that “I will always be with you,” &c.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
Now, the antipapist [“Protestant”] forces deny that that’s what those passages mean. Fine. But playing Immovable Object isn’t #winning. You cannot be the judge and jury when you’re a litigant.
In fact, if you don’t show up in court, you lose by default. By your own sola scriptura standards, yo don’t even make an attempt at a case, that Luther and Calvin are going to show up in 1500 years to straighten stuff out.
Your standards, not mine or the Vatican’s. You can’t win by default. Or by polemic–do you know the difference in the standard of proof between a civil and a criminal trial?
LikeLike
Kenneth, “allow me” to tell you to shut up until you bone up on all that philosophy you supposedly studied, Thomistic or no. It’s a given that nobody can prove first axioms, so the circular argument thing cuts both ways. Duh.
Prots appeal to Scripture, cats to the Church. Double duh.
The problem for Rome at least, is that the first principle/axiom she supposedly appeals to is an insider/in house deal. While all parties agree on the contents of the NT, however arrived at, Rome appeals to the Trad/Mag when she’s not including the T/M in her redefinition of Scripture. But this is not self serving and compromised because Rome gets to define the Trad/Mag herself? Never mind the contradiction in terms to her argument in which she appeals to something in Scripture in the first place, such as as Matt. 16:18, in order to supposedly establish the Trad/Mag . …. …as her first axiom? Please.
Rome would be better off just throwing the Bible away and doing her own thing. Which is pretty much what she does if she can get away with it now or at the Reformation (Remember all those latin vernacular bible translations?) IOW when you got your thumb on the scale and get to vet not only the combox responses, but also the in house axiom which hypocritically appeals to the external first axiom of other parties whom Rome just happens to be in disagreement with, well guess what? Somebody’s got their hand in the cookie jar and it ain’t the prot CookieMonster getting warm milk and crumbs all over the public library’s copy of Copi’s Elementary Logic.
The problem for Rome is the same as that for Mormonism. Beginning with the Scripture, prove ongoing inspiration/revelation whether in the Trad/Mag or the Book of Mormon. Until then your argument begs the question, if not that it more resembles an assertion than anything else.
Oh yeah, for the nth time Eduardo Mortara. When the pope preaches and teaches spiritual and temporal supremacy – until reality and the loss of the Vatican States ahem, modified that infallible doctrine – that means Rome gets to dictate to the civil magistrate what the true religion is, much more take steps herself to enforce the true religion. Which is what she did even if modern papists don’t like to be reminded of it. Or pretend they can’t understand what the problem is.
Which means they still belong in CCD class instead of on the innernet pontificating bout stuff they doan unnerstan, capiche?
ciao
LikeLike
Susan,
This conversation seems to be moving really fast for a New Years Day evening. I’ll try to keep up…
The Essenes seemed to place a great emphasis on the prophets. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah from what I understand. How did they “know” they were the covenantal people of God? I don’t think that is a very good question. Are you asking “what was the epistemological framework by which their belief that they were the covenantal people of God was warranted”? I don’t think this is a very fruitful line of inquiry – epistemology hasn’t really produced any fruitful lines of inquiry that I know of (the pragmatists and empiricists have won that argument in my estimation). My guess is that most of the 1st century Jews believed they were the covenantal people of God because that is what their community believed, because that is what their forebears believed, etc…. There was no magisterium (infallible or otherwise).
It seems pretty clear to me from the interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees that tradition played a central role in their interpretative norm. However, that approach comes under withering criticism from Jesus. Consider Jesus’s interaction with the Pharisees over washing hands (Mark 7 & Mt 15):
Of course these guys had authority as you surmised from the passage you quoted, but they (like everyone) were fallible and their teachings and traditions had to be weighed against scripture.
No scripture really did recount Moses permitting divorce, but this was because of the hardness of their hearts (accommodation and all that). But Jesus indicates that scripture teaches that divorce should not be (referencing Genesis). The bottom line here is that the fundamental authority to which Jesus appealed is scripture. There was no council, no unbroken succession of “apostles” that protected an infallible unfolding interpretation, and no official universally accepted canon. Further, Jesus seems to indicate that one can’t understand scripture or what he says (they are hidden) unless one’s eyes and ears are supernaturally opened. Not sure where epistemology fits in here.
My main beef with the RC criticism of sola scriptura is that it applies to Jesus’s use of scripture. Like I said, this doesn’t prove that magisterium is fallible, etc… but it does seem to suggest that these roman claims are superfluous (epicycles to buttress political claims in an earlier era that has left them painted in a corner?).
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted January 1, 2014 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
Kenneth, “allow me” to tell you to shut up until you bone up on all that philosophy you supposedly studied, Thomistic or no. It’s a given that nobody can prove first axioms, so the circular argument thing cuts both ways. Duh.
Prots appeal to Scripture, cats to the Church. Double duh.
Actually, the Catholic argument is not a “First Thing.” It argues via a history of a visible church [that you contest] and also by Biblical warrant [which you also contest].
Which is fine that you disagree on their claims, but it’s improper for you to say they didn’t bring their case.
LikeLike
Sorry Susan, I was trying to speak your language of crisis. I didn’t so much dislike RC as I found it to be untrue to the scriptures. So, the more I read and understood, the poorer an RC I became. I wrestled with the oral tradition and whether in the hands of the higher-critics or even a later more conservative interpretation, there wasn’t a question of the superiority of the historic reliability of the scriptures over later or spurious developments. All circumspect christian apologetics ultimately revolve around the person of Jesus Christ, from the incarnation to the resurrection. And there simply doesn’t exist a more reliable testimony to that person than the apostolic writings of His historicity.
So, the closer you are in your beliefs to that tradition and that person of Christ revealed, then the more sure a foundation you have. I fail to be able to reconcile to the idea that the farther we are removed from that revelation, for whatever supposedly religious reason, including ecclesiological constructs of infallible interpreters in succession through the laying on of hands, the closer to the truth we get. If you could substantiate tridentine RC in scripture, I would revert.
LikeLike
sean
Posted January 1, 2014 at 10:02 pm | Permalink
Sorry Susan, I was trying to speak your language of crisis. I didn’t so much dislike RC as I found it to be untrue to the scriptures. So, the more I read and understood, the poorer an RC I became. I wrestled with the oral tradition and whether in the hands of the higher-critics or even a later more conservative interpretation, there wasn’t a question of the superiority of the historic reliability of the scriptures over later or spurious developments. All circumspect christian apologetics ultimately revolve around the person of Jesus Christ, from the incarnation to the resurrection. And there simply doesn’t exist a more reliable testimony to that person than the apostolic writings of His historicity.
The last sentence is a sola scriptura argument. You were a Protestant before you became a Protestant.
That the Gospels are “apostolic” is more a term of art than fact, with the exception of the book of John. Pretty much, you’re stuck with the authorship of the synoptic Gospels being under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not the direct testimony of eyewitnesses.
You can’t get around this Holy Spirit thing. Hey, there are those who deal with all the contradictions in it by simply claiming the KJV is divinely produced via the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps that’s unBiblical circular reasoning, but it sure does cut the Gordian Knot.
LikeLike
TVD, without getting into a full-blown discussion of textual criticism, the scholarship has left what you are offering behind.
LikeLike
TVD- That the Gospels are “apostolic” is more a term of art than fact, with the exception of the book of John. Pretty much, you’re stuck with the authorship of the synoptic Gospels being under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not the direct testimony of eyewitnesses
Maybe not. You might want to take a look at Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” I’m not convinced that he’s completely on solid ground, but he makes a better case for the gospels containing a solid core of eyewitness testimony than I would have thought possible. Several of the late Martin Hengel’s works would suggest that the amount of historical information that can be extracted from the NT is in fact very early and has strong indicia of reliability.
LikeLike
sean
Posted January 1, 2014 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
TVD, without getting into a full-blown discussion of textual criticism, the scholarship has left what you are offering behind.
I’ll read whatever links you might offer, Sean. I have no problem with “Q” [a sayings gospel] being grafted by “Luke” and “Matthew” [not their real names] onto Mark’s narrative. Hopefully you know what I mean by this.
I’m most troubled by the strong evidence that perhaps the most beautiful story in the NT is fake, the “pericope adulterae.” I prefer to think St. Jerome’s explanation is the correct one, but even still, it does show how men can thwart the will of God–at least temporarily.
LikeLike
TVD, let me let you wrestle with Peter a little bit on the eyewitness reliability and availability. Particularly as he attests to his eyewitness reliability by citing a historical narrative from the synoptics
2 Peter 1
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
The Veronian Disciple speaks at least with a confused tongue. That there is a God both parties agree, as to whether he reveals himself infallibly in Scripture alone or in the infallible Trad/Mag along with Scripture is the question. To be sure Rome has brought an argument, but it is one thing for Scripture to appeal to Scripture for its own authority, another for Rome to appeal to Scripture for her own supposedly equally infallible authority.
But an equal doesn’t appeal to another equal to establish its own authority – unless it is not equal but derivative. But then Rome is under Scripture and not over it and she can’t stand that. So the fraud continues.
LikeLike
sean
Posted January 1, 2014 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
TVD, let me let you wrestle with Peter a little bit on the eyewitness reliability and availability. Particularly as he attests to his eyewitness reliability by citing a historical narrative from the synoptics
2 Peter 1
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
I’m thinking you don’t know what I mean by this, since you showed no indication that you do. I’m attempting to play on your home field. I’m a good sport. Are you saying that Peter read a synoptic Gospel? Had a synoptic gospel to read? The timeline is idunnowhat here.
LikeLike
Sean,
So when it comes down to it any attempt to understand anything beyond the fact that Jesus was on earth, all we have is conjecture?
I’m sorry that I am so slow, but could you break each thing down into smaller bites for me. I’m trying to construct a picture of how scripture, tradition and church work in unison.
1) In order to establish the biblical canon isn’t it necessary to have the man or group make that decision using criterion that is outside the books up for consideration in the first placee? IOW’s outside the sola scriptura framework? To me, this violates the principle.
2) Since the scriptures had been in long use prior to the Reformation by what extra authority was the canon placed under new scrutiny? Why not stay with the tried and true part of tradition since scripture was the highest authority within the tradition at that time?
3) Could you give me a list of what doctrines are orthodox for all of Christianity?
4) EO and RCC both make the Eucharist the pinnacle of the worship, so why does its importance wain in many Protestant commuities( please refrain from talking about abuse in the RCC; the only reason we know abuse exists is because it viotates a known norm), becomming celebrated only on Sundays, sometimes bi-weekly, or monthy, and sometimes only on special occasions and sometimes as only a memorial?
5) Do you think Protestant’s deny transubstantiation because of a belief that all miracles have ceased after the last Apostles?
6) Since you used to be Catholic, I assume you know how Catholics back-up the Marian dogma and purgatory. Looking at that data( Mary as the New Eve; Mary as the Queen Mother by referencing Davidic Kingdom) can you give me a Protestant alternative to, especially Mary as Queen Mother.
I appreciate this, because I haven’t heard a Protestant interpreation of the scripture that Catholics appeal to to support this doctrine
LikeLike
Bob S,
oh lord.
Kenneth, “allow me” to tell you to shut up until you bone up on all that philosophy you supposedly studied, Thomistic or no. It’s a given that nobody can prove first axioms, so the circular argument thing cuts both ways. Duh.
Prots appeal to Scripture, cats to the Church. Double duh.
Did you read anything I wrote? Probably didn’t bother… Reformed rarely venture off their talking points no matter what is said. Those that do end up leaving the ranch and crossing the Tiber. I didn’t appeal to the Church as a first axiom. I didn’t discuss first things at all actually. I argued from reason and history…. Triple duh?
Here is my favorite part…
The problem for Rome is the same as that for Mormonism. Beginning with the Scripture, prove ongoing inspiration/revelation whether in the Trad/Mag or the Book of Mormon. Until then your argument begs the question, if not that it more resembles an assertion than anything else.
You demand that I prove everything from.scripture alone….. And if I don’t then I am the one who is begging the question! Now that’s rich!
LikeLike
Erik,
“the Catholic Church claims the Holy Spirit guides its magisterium, a “truth claim” that cannot be proved or disproved.”
I already told you how RCism could be falsified earlier in this thread
As for Bereans sure they checked Paul’s teachings to see if they were consistent – how could they be sola scripturists when revelation was still unfolding? Presuming RC teaching is inconsistent with Scripture assumes whats in dispute.
As to not being able to have perfect knowledge or certainty on divine articles is that the model we see the Apostles and Christ in their teaching? Are you certain Christ is real and your canon of Scripture is infallible and inerrant? Why if we need to reject these arrogant notions of certainty?
LikeLike
Susan, if sin is present and deceit is possible, including self-deceit, how is certainty possible? Faith is about believing despite what our eyes see or our minds may think (man rises from death). No offense, but your quest for certainty seems similar to the adolescent boy who needs to KNOW his girlfriend really likes him.
LikeLike
Susan, where exactly is “CERTAINTY” in what you quote?
LikeLike
Tom,
Yes, never three popes.
LikeLike
Tom, stop assuming you are an umpire here.
LikeLike
Tom, and what you don’t seem to understand is the difference between being a regular guy and an ass.
LikeLike
kenloses, and where exactly have you appealed to Scripture?
LikeLike
Tom, “I’m a good sport.”
Stop playing umpire.
LikeLike
Susan: I’m trying to construct a picture of how scripture, tradition and church work in unison.
You may find this to be helpful:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/kruger-vs-ratzinger-2-apostolic.html
LikeLike
Susan: 5) Do you think Protestant’s deny transubstantiation because of a belief that all miracles have ceased after the last Apostles?
You may find this to be helpful:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/roman-catholicism-as-misinformation.html
LikeLike
DGH: Tom, and what you don’t seem to understand is the difference between being a regular guy and an ass.
Don’t forget “coward” and “hypocrite” and “blowhard” as well.
LikeLike
Gentlemen John,
you are losing your cool again. Still happily awaiting your explanation on canon.
DGHART,
I explained the role of scripture around page 7 or 8 although no passages were examined. My modest goal was to show that the RC paradigm is in fact epistemologically superior to that of the reformed.
LikeLike
TVD, if you’re familiar with the development of Q source(the why of it) and the interchange of oral tradition and reliability of eyewitness testimony and the underlying skepticism of the reliability of that testimony for pious or even impious reasons, it might make more sense why I gave you 2 Peter. I’m not being ‘cute’ with you, but questions of the historicity and reliability are what are in play when we are talking about different source theories. At the end of the day, if those closest to the events are found trustworthy, you rely on that source even where you have no other corroborations…………. ‘We did not follow cleverly devised myths, but(instead) we were eyewitnesses of His majesty”
LikeLike
Susan – yesterday you asked the following: “I need some clarification please: If there were lots of different groups (Sadduccees, Pharisees, Essenes, et al) with lots of intepretations, how did the covenantal people of God….know that they were “the” covenantal people of God?”
Regrettably, the Biblical record would inform us that they (falsely) relied upon their DNA. (Cf John 8, among other places, where Jews thought they were in a good spot with God merely because they could claim lineage to Abraham.) In fact, most Jews today, while completely secular, also derive a measure of pride from their lineage.
Needless to say, Jesus was not so impressed with the Jews’ argument about the superiority of their lineage.
The parallels between Jews who (falsely) find spiritual ‘safety’ in their lineage and RCC folks who find spiritual ‘safety’, so to speak, in their church, are striking. And, this should be a strong warning to each/every RCC person who takes comfort from whatever assurance they think they can have by mere dint of their affiliation with the RCC.
Each of us, individually, are and will be accountable to God. Many of us are convinced that we are justified by faith alone, and our prayer would be that all mankind would be convicted by the Spirit of that liberating, and amazing, truth.
LikeLike
Susan, conjecture? I don’t know where you got that impression. Again, your epistemic crisis is your itch. Scripture’s authority is inherent or derived from it’s role within the new covenant administration. It is the means God uses to govern his covenant people. To this end he has provided apostolic witness and the enablement of the Holy Spirit.
1) In order to establish the biblical canon isn’t it necessary to have the man or group make that decision using criterion that is outside the books up for consideration in the first placee?
Me: Susan, in short, no. The church receives the canon it doesn’t impart authority to it or establish it.
2) Since the scriptures had been in long use prior to the Reformation by what extra authority was the canon placed under new scrutiny?
Me: You’d have to be more specific here, but as regards challenging the abuses of Rome, why would that be off limits in light of Gal 1:8? Rome has undergone reform movements numerous times, even arising from lay charism. The laity in fact have an obligation for sanctity of religious conscience to do so.
3) Could you give me a list of what doctrines are orthodox for all of Christianity?
Me: We confess the historic creeds, as well as subscribe our own creedal formulations. If your question is one of authority, we subscribe a subjugated authority in which Christ is still the head of the church. The idea that tridentine RC is patristic is anachronistic or that RC’s authority is superior because it claims as much, is a philosophic construct that is not anchored in history, the scriptures nor fealty rendered and has much more in common with wish fullfillment; ‘wouldn’t it have made sense…’. IOW, the philosophic construct of infallible capacity neither describes the historic chain of events, nor grounds itself in apostolic witness. And in fact, overextends it’s authority so as to supplant the place of Christ in relation to His church.
4) EO and RCC both make the Eucharist the pinnacle of the worship, so why does its importance wain in many Protestant commuities( please refrain from talking about abuse in the RCC; the only reason we know abuse exists is because it viotates a known norm), becomming celebrated only on Sundays, sometimes bi-weekly, or monthy, and sometimes only on special occasions and sometimes as only a memorial?
Me; Susan, could be many reasons, from; it still has a prominent place in many protestant communions, to considerations of the primacy of the word and that preached, to a rejection of the priestly class and charism as unbiblical, to abberant deformations. Eucharistic celebration as uniquely practiced in RC communions is particularly tied to the priestly class, without a priestly class, you don’t have it. The priestly class was largely a manifestation of the gregorian reforms, 11th century.
5) Do you think Protestant’s deny transubstantiation because of a belief that all miracles have ceased after the last Apostles
See the prior answer
6) Since you used to be Catholic, I assume you know how Catholics back-up the Marian dogma and purgatory. Looking at that data( Mary as the New Eve; Mary as the Queen Mother by referencing Davidic Kingdom) can you give me a Protestant alternative to, especially Mary as Queen Mother.
Me: Mary’s honor is assured, if for no other reason than the use of her as an exemplar in holy writ. Rome in fact has in many ways brought her dishonor by elevating her to a position out of accord with fallen Imago Dei and rivaling Jesus not only dogmatically(still an ongoing development) but particularly in encouraging a pew practice that eclipses the worship of Jesus.
LikeLike
A hypothetical for the Catholics here, especially Susan:
One of the emphases of Pope Francis is protecting the poor and the powerless. I want to reflect a bit on how church discipline (or lack thereof) impacts caring for those types of people.
I’m getting to the age where some men consider trading in their wives for a younger model. I’m in my late 40s, still have my hair, make a good salary, and might be able to attract a younger lady in the college town that I spend most of my time in.
I know for a fact, however, that if I did this one of the first things that would happen is that I would be excommunicated in short order from my URCNA church. How do I know that? I’ve seen it happen to a woman who abandoned her husband.
In my case my Reformed church would be justly protecting my wife by putting me out of the church and treating me as an unbeliever if I abandoned her.
Does church discipline like this exist in the Roman Catholic Church, a church that is ostensibly about protecting the poor and the powerless?
What if I’m quite wealthy and could perhaps give a considerable amount of money to my local Catholic school or church remodeling project? Might that help me get an annulment of my first marriage so that the church would be “o.k.” with the second? Does this happen, or is that only in the movies? Share some stories of church discipline that you have witnessed in your local parishes.
LikeLike
Erik,
I am currently unable to take communion in my parish. My wife was married once before me and so we wait to see if there can be an annulment or not. If not we will have to raise our children as “brother and sister” or else she would have to return to her previous husband. Tough medicine to swallow when considering conversion eh? Parish discipline varies from parish to parish…. I prefer Traditional parishes and attend an FSSP parish in Houston. (GASP he still attends an evil Latin Mass where the priest murmurs with his BACK to the people!) How do reformed handle divorce and remarriage in general?
LikeLike
Petros/Susan, the tick for unduly finding security in the visible church worthy of rebuke also has precedent among the disciples themselves, as in Mark (and Luke) 9 when the disciples were miffed at a man healing who “is not of us.” Note that no call to communion was issued that separated brother.
LikeLike
Sean,
No offence, but by your answers I only see Protestantism, and particularly Reformed in this instance, setting the parameters of how and how much Christianity can do with what is revealed in scripture. I aske you specifically about the Marian doctrines of her as the New Eve, and Queen Mother. I was a pretty confident Reformed person “because” I believed that the Reformers were certain about their separation from the RCC based on Catholicism”s unscriptural views, but when I got *scriptural* answers and realized that any attempt to limit their scope or degree, was not defending scripture, but Protestant sensibilites, I could no longer stay Protestant. Could you imagine me at lunch after services on Sunday spreading the biblical-ness of the marian doctrines? Do you think that I wouldn’t be warned and censored to quit speaking Catholic doctrine? If the whole of Christianity is premised upon scripture plus tradition( where it agrees with scripture) than Catholicism has a good case judging from the evidence of both.
I may look like a school boy wanting to know if his girlfriend really loves him to you, but promise, to me it was more along the lines of, ” is my girlfriend a figment of my imagine”?
LikeLike
Susan, the boy-girl analogy wasn’t mine. As regards protestant sensibilities, I certainly have them and unapologetically. I readily admit that the trad RC’s and the confessional prots have irreconcilable premises. Sometimes ecumenism, as with good neighbors, are aided by well kept fences. But I did grow up on the other side of the fence and I have both a cultural and varyingly informed understanding of the doctrine( I remember some parts better than other parts). I would beg to differ as to the trad RC’s being willing to be brought to the bar of scripture and even when they are, they tend to justify departure from scripture by means of “T” tradition. Which, as you can imagine, what with my protestant sensibilities and all, is unsatisfying. We’ll just hold in abeyance for now, the whole cognitive dissonance within your own communion such that you have categories of liberal and conservative and spirit of Vat II and trads. Such realities tend to mitigate against y’alls claims to a superior unity which makes your prima facie arguments as to protestant variety and disunity, ring hollow. And in comparison to confessional prots, you guys are absolutely fractious.
LikeLike
Ken the Splinter — prior papal approval not withstanding, you are for all intents and purposes more marginal than most micro denoms. 200 priests worldwide? Makes NAPARC look huge.
http://www.fssp.org/en/presentation.htm
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Wow, that’s interesting.
My experience on how the Reformed handle the issue is limited to my own church.
LikeLike
Chortles,
lol its a priestly fraternity not a denomination. There are numerous such traditional fraternities and traditional priests all around the world who just operate in their parish. The FSSP doesn’t have its own unique theology or anything like that. They are unique only in that they perform the Latin mass exclusively.
LikeLike
Susan,
If you wanted people who played fast and loose with scripture, adding to it from their own traditions, you could have just become a liberal Protestant.
You might have struggled to explain the “biblical-ness” of Marian Doctrines because they are not biblical, but extrabiblical.
Once you go extrabiblical it’s katy bar the door, as evidenced by the backtracking that Rome has had to do on so many disciplines.
LikeLike
d̶o̶c̶t̶r̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ disciplines
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted January 2, 2014 at 7:44 am | Permalink
DGH: Tom, and what you don’t seem to understand is the difference between being a regular guy and an ass.
Don’t forget “coward” and “hypocrite” and “blowhard” as well.
“By their fruits ye shall know them” thing is not working out for you guys.
LikeLike
When the Truly Reformed search for a hard-ass, old school confessionalist church they’re called divisive. When Ken shops for a parish with the Latin Rite and traditionalist vibe he’s also…divisive — if you take pope du jour at his off-the-cuff secular press interview word. Lighten up, Ken. Worry more about the third world and youth unemployment than Ken’s stick-in-the-mud rite preferences. Geesh.
LikeLike
Chortles,
lol touchee
LikeLike
Sean,
I know you didn’t make the boy friend-girl friend comment; just thought I’d put it in to answer Darryl.
I’m getting some clarity after rereading parts of an article by Dr. David Anders from a Aug. 2012.
Here’s a portion from the thread where he addresses a young man named Josh:
Josh- “The certainty that you all offer is contingent upon one prime truth: the infallible authority of the magesterium. Now, epistemologically y’all can be no more certain of this prime truth (the infallibility of the magesterium), which determines these other 10 truths, than we can about the ten truths themselves.”
Dr. Anders_ “The cases you present are not analogous in the way you present. In each case, there are two truths to be ascertained: 1) the identity of the Rule of Faith, 2) The interpretation of the Rule of Faith.
The Protestant identifies the Rule of Faith as Scripture, and claims the only infallible rule for interpreting Scripture is Scripture itself.
The Catholic identifies the Rule of Faith as the Magisterium, and says the only infallible rule for interpretation is the Magisterium.
In both the Catholic and Protestant paradigms, the submission we make to the Rule of Faith cannot be compelled by pure reason. Rather, we each believe that this submission of faith is rational, but ultimately influenced by the movement of divine grace, as well.
Once we make that submission of will and intellect (the Protestant to Scripture alone; the Catholic to the Church), then comes the second question of interpreting the teaching of the Rule of Faith. And here, the Catholic is at a distinct advantage. Because he submits to a living Rule, that can (and does) continually restate, clarify, and expound upon dogma. The living guide also explicitly identifies some truths as dogmatic, to be held de fide, and distinguishes these truths from others.
The Protestant Rule of Faith, however, is presumed to be so clear as to need no further infallible clarification. It is this claim and the history of its application that I have sought to examine in the post.
The hypothetical you suggest – of submitting to an authority that turns out to be fallible – we Catholics obviously reject. We are not ‘mostly’ certain that the Church is the infallible Rule of Faith. We are “certain” (certainty does not admit of degrees) that She is the infallible Rule of Faith. To be ‘mostly certain’ is to admit of doubt and, thus, not to be certain”
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/is-certainty-a-bad-thing-certainty-infallibility-and-the-reformed-tradition/
Susan
LikeLike
You’re alright, Ken.
LikeLike
You see I was in search of doctrinal certainty. The same thing that all of you want too.
The conclusion from the article I just linked:
“More and more Reformed Christians are becoming Catholics in search of doctrinal certainty. They have recognized that Protestantism has no principled way of objectively distinguishing dogma from opinion. *The Catholic claim to be able to do this is not only attractive and satisfying, but it is objectively grounded in revelation and history.*
Some Reformed writers have criticized this quest for certainty. They object to this search for “hard edges.” Instead, they urge humility and prayer, veneration of Scripture alone, and a limited reliance on ministerial authority and tradition. They acknowledge that these measures are prone to failure and cannot provide absolute certainty, but they suggest that they provide enough certainty to guarantee a saving knowledge of Christ.
We have placed this objection in historical context. We see that the early sources of the Reformed tradition were not reticent about promising doctrinal certainty, but that over time Protestantism was subjected to a type of theological reductionism. This reductionism is a challenge to the Reformed view of doctrinal certainty. We have also called into question a central claim of the Reformed view of Scripture: that there is a (Reformed) soteriological core that is so clear as to be reasonably beyond question. We have also questioned why theological certainty should be limited to only soteriological issues?
Finally, it is not true that all Reformed converts to Catholicism are ignorant of Reformation history and doctrine. I, for one, was raised fully in the reductionistic, evangelical school of Reformed history. When I began to study the Reformation in earnest, however, I discovered the more robust view of ecclesiastical authority, liturgy, and sacramental life. I also discovered an intolerance of schism, and a real desire for doctrinal unity on even (seemingly) trivial questions. Inspired by this more robust, Calvinistic vision of doctrinal unity, theological certainty, and ecclesial life, I pursued a systematic investigation of Scripture, history, and tradition to discern which communion had the strongest claim to orthodoxy, historical continuity, and biblical fidelity. Study of history, Scripture, and tradition made the Calvinist claim to authenticity incredible to be. It made the Catholic claim credible
LikeLike
Susan, thanks. This looks to be some variation of or addition to, the persons and texts argument. Two things immediately occur to me; 1) the infallible certainty is still a claim that ultimately has to ground itself in the objective both considered prior(MOC) and affirmed continuously(development, practice, declaration) 2) Even in the RC paradigm it has to attain more than cursory foundation in sacred text.
The problem occurs in that the sacred text as sacred text not only declares it’s own authority but also sets forth polity and hermenuetical principles; i.e. analogia fide. That we all are supposed to bend the knee to, but when we get down to examination of dogma, trad RC apologetics throws up question begging flags when scriptural valuation is ultimate.
It’s my opinion that you’re getting caught up in the coherence of an argument without adequate reference to the object, the paradigm/argument is supposed to explain. I agree that the CtC argument is ’round’ and getting ’rounder’. But if it lacks adequate grounding in ‘reality’ then it’s explanatory value is limited. This is the fallacy of the solo argument. The CtC argument pins itself to an observable phenomena of protestant disunity, but then turns around and fails to apply the same principle to it’s own communion and excuses itself by appeal to an infallible CLAIM of principled capacity. Where’s the measured valuation of RC claims set against RC reality? As Darryl has said, history’s acids gets us all. To excuse the RC valuation from the same standard it applies to others by means of a philosophical construct that lays claims to a premise unsecured either in the MOC or subsequent phenomena is just sophistry.
LikeLike
Sean,
I need to read what you’ve written several times before I can find the crux of your objection, but I will try my best in a little while. God didn’t bless me with the largest brain.
I appreciate the conversation, and will remain hopeful that we can understand one another eventually:)
Blessings!
Susan
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Well, Tom, you are the one who said “Send something, I’ll read”, then when I sent something up, and it was too much for you. So when you talk about “fruits”, here, you’re talking about being good for your word. Which you demonstrably are not. Hence the appropriate adjectives.
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:40 pm
DGH: Tom, and what you don’t seem to understand is the difference between being a regular guy and an ass.
JB: Don’t forget “coward” and “hypocrite” and “blowhard” as well.
TVD: “By their fruits ye shall know them” thing is not working out for you guys.
Well, Tom, you are the one who said “Send something, I’ll read”, then when I sent something up, and it was too much for you. So when you talk about “fruits”, here, you’re talking about being good for your word. Which you demonstrably are not. Hence the appropriate adjectives.
They’re nouns. johnloses
LikeLike
Tom, think “colorful metaphors” from Star Trek IV. I don’t take you seriously enough even to pay attention to my descriptions of you.
LikeLike
Sean, that last comment was really quite stellar.
What I see in these newbie RC’s is an existential need for authority along with a hope for unity & consistency. Then, once they’re inside RC, they have dogmas of unity and consistency. But those dogmas refer to observable facts, and it’s more weight than the facts can bear. Nonetheless this inability to verify seems no more a stumbling block than it is for transubstantiation. Still, the battle doggedly goes on to make the facts fit the dogma.
LikeLike
Educational and entertaining!
LikeLike
Tom,
Immovable Object game. What possible proof would satisfy you? If put under the same gun, you can’t even prove there’s a God, let alone a Son and Holy Spirit.
Now you’re annoying me.
My main point in all of this is to counter the lie that the Roman Magisterium provides some kind of certainty unavailable in Protestantism. Bryan Cross and all these newbie converts who are impressed with his lengthy words that amount to sound and fury signifying nothing have to, at the end of the day, say that the Magisterium is self-authenticating, just as we say of Scripture. That’s all I really want them to admit. There is nothing external to the Magisterium that corroborates the Magisterium in the final and ultimate way. If their were, that something external would be the final authority. Same for Scripture. But these RCs think they’ve escaped the problem of verification.
LikeLike
One thing that I am catching as I read more stuff written by Catholics here, at Called-to-Communion, and elsewhere is really how big a tent it is. I think Bryan realizes that and sees his mission as trying to kind of systematize it and make it all cohere. I think he is doing this not only for the benefit of others, but for the benefit of himself as well. I think it’s kind of a losing proposition, though, because I don’t think it all does completely cohere and I don’t think the hierarchy really cares about that.
I joke about the Roman Catholic Catechism having close to 3,000 Q&A’s, but it’s actually a serious problem. There is no way someone can absorb all that and, even if they do absorb it, it can’t all fit together neatly. It’s too much information, formed over too long a time period, developed in too many different historical contexts, to completely make sense.
Sean used to say, “It’s about the Mass”, and I think he’s right. As long as you go to mass and show allegiance to the Pope, you can be a “good Catholic” and if you want to go off on your own tangent with a pet theory about the Eucharist, the incarnation, this or that mystic, this or that alleged miracle in some far away place, then that’s great. There are just too many people in too many different places doing too many different things for a limited number of priests to in any way police them.
We as Reformed people have something way different and way more compelling to offer, though — A clear understanding of the Law of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. Some will seek things other than that and wander away to this or that alternative, but we will be there continuing to offer simple law and gospel teaching and Christ-centered worship to those with ears to hear.
LikeLike
Susan, why did you find that convincing? First, when was the last time a pope actually interpreted dogma? Second, lots of sources say the papacy has invoked infallibility only twice. Third, Anders double deals by saying that Protestants believe Scripture is so clear as to need no further infallible interpretation. Protestants believe Scripture needs to be interpreted and is not clear in all things. We also believe no interpret is infallible, unlike popes who do believe they are infallible and turn out to be wrong (Boniface VIII and Unam Sanctam).
Susan, you’re not even gaining certainty by your own claims. It is like Doug Flutie’s pass against Miami in 1984.
LikeLike
Susan, doctrinal certainty is not the same thing as epistemological certainty.
Does it ever bother you that with all the “certainty” that Rome professes, Roman Catholics know so little of what the church believes? Do you ever think about qualifying your claims for Rome when the American church is in a free fall?
Hard to take you seriously your theory doesn’t match up with the state of affairs.
LikeLike
This reminds me of a line from a movie to the effect that one could be an atheist and a good catholic. I had a buddy in grad school who quoted that line often. His catholicism was strictly cultural. But we laity don’t always reflect on our communions so well. The bigger problem with the claims for a supposed unity among RCs are the intelligentsia and priests within their ranks who know all this stuff about the supposedly infallible magisterium and dissent. Whether conservatives like Neuhaus who are universalists or liberals like Wills who think the papacy is an abomination. If the magisterium is so clear and infallible, why do the people who know it best continue to dissent? In other words how is it that Stellman and Cross know so much better than Fr. McBrien and Fr. Kung? What’s a good catholic to do? Use their own judgement to determine who is the better interpreter of RCism? There’s that private judgement again…
LikeLike
Sean and Mike,
Do you think that when you survey whether or not the RC “theory” matches “reality” you use a hermeneutic of skepticism? I would suggest that you do. Just reading the comments at Old Life its hard not to scoff at the constant appeal to “current scholarship” and how it refutes all that the RCC claims for it self. But then when the canon is questioned you all immediately appeal to Kruger who openly admits that he is in the extreme minority of scholarship. Appeals to King and Websters 3 volume self published work (coauthored by a business major) abound. “Big tent” Catholicism is constantly criticized while a can spend time on two different blogs, both dominated by reformed Presbyterians and constantly hear
“Oh you just don’t understand reformed theology! We actually teach X!”
“Oh you just don’t understand reformed theology! We actually teach Y”
“Oh you just don’t understand reformed theology! We actually teach Z”
Church history is all murky and confusing when addressing catholic claims. Church history is rather straight forward and obvious when addressing reformed claims. I remember watching a debate with Janes White and a Muslim. The Muslim was constantly pulling the same shtick appealing to the critical hermeneutic when looking at the bible and then putting on rose colored glasses when looking at the Qur’an. James called him out on it. I think he was right to do so.
LikeLike
“It is like Doug Flutie’s pass against Miami in 1984.”
Dudeness, I know you’re a historian and all but in my history that Hail Mary was caught. It wasn’t caught by Flutie’s favorite target Darren Flutie (both of whom played for Natick High School in Massachusetts) but by Gerard Phelan.
Doug’s nephew Troy Flutie just led Natick High to it’s divisional Super Bowl as a quarterback. He is going to follow his uncle to Boston College.
See, Mudster knows some stuff about Catholics too.
LikeLike
Robert
Posted January 2, 2014 at 8:55 pm | Permalink
Tom,
>>>>>>Immovable Object game. What possible proof would satisfy you? If put under the same gun, you can’t even prove there’s a God, let alone a Son and Holy Spirit.<<<<<<<<<
Now you’re annoying me.
My main point in all of this is to counter the lie that the Roman Magisterium provides some kind of certainty unavailable in Protestantism. Bryan Cross and all these newbie converts who are impressed with his lengthy words that amount to sound and fury signifying nothing have to, at the end of the day, say that the Magisterium is self-authenticating, just as we say of Scripture. That’s all I really want them to admit. There is nothing external to the Magisterium that corroborates the Magisterium in the final and ultimate way. If their were, that something external would be the final authority. Same for Scripture. But these RCs think they’ve escaped the problem of verification.
I’m sorry you’re annoyed. I think you’re more vexed, and perhaps not by me, but at your inability to articulate what you believe should be obvious.
But it isn’t obvious. The Catholic claim IS that the magisterium is supported by an external source–the scriptures*.
That of course follows the “thou art Peter” verse that Catholics claim establishes the papacy. Now Protestants dispute that’s what Jesus was doing, but the point is that the Catholic claim is internally consistent, not just a random verse enlisted out of context. Jesus gives Peter [or somebody!] some sort of power and authority here–whether that equals the Catholic Church, well, that’s a separate question.
______
*By contrast, since the New Testament isn’t even written until 50 years after Jesus’ death, sola scriptura cannot prove sola scriptura. By his own words, Jesus leaves behind some sort of “church,” not a Bible.
[I’m quite listening to the arguments around here, except when the cut & paste makes my eyes glaze over. I thought I was fair to the lengthy Michael J. Kruger argument, and would have responded to Sean except that 2 Peter is regarded by most scholars as not Peter’s work, so chopping through those philology weeds were too tall for a 500-comment thread that will never [unlike CtoC threads] be read again.]
LikeLike
Ken, I would understand it if you want to charge me with skepticism over a dogma that isn’t prone to verification, but unity and your historical claims are subject to verification. I understand that you must believe in certain things as articles of faith, but using ordinary means of analysis we don’t see your verifiable claims making the cut.
We could talk about the Reformation, but our faith doesn’t live or die by what Luther might have said after a few beers or by Calvin might have said or done on a particularly cranky day. And we’d like to have a more sparkling history of Presbyterianism, but you know, that’s life in this epoch and we don’t whitewash it. So we look at our church history (beginning in Acts) knowing there will be all kinds of problems just as NT epistles reflect problems in the churches at the time of the apostles. So we aren’t any more skeptical about our church history than the one you claim to be yours.
LikeLike
messed up the last sentence. my laptop was about to die so I hurried.
LikeLike
Muddy Gravel
Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
“It is like Doug Flutie’s pass against Miami in 1984.”
Dudeness, I know you’re a historian and all but…
LikeLike
Darryl- “Does it ever bother you that with all the “certainty” that Rome professes, Roman Catholics know so little of what the church believes? Do you ever think about qualifying your claims for Rome when the American church is in a free fall?
No, I would expect that in a Church this size. In my old Reformed Protestant group, the number of ladies who went in for theology was small too, so no surprise there. Scripture is taught all the time and there are catechism classes offered for the adults and the youth. Maybe parents are failing to get their kiddos to these classes or failing to teach within their own homes…..I don’t know. But it is all there in black and white for the taking.
I don’t know that the Church in America is in a freefall. It certainly is influenced by liberal secularism, but the Protestant churches in America are becoming more and more liberal too. The thing is about the Catholic Church, it will never (under the auspices of right and true authority) give moral approval of illmoral behavior or teach contrary to the faith.
When I was a Reformed person and my theologically conservative island started shrinking, I would have had to tell myself, “at least my beliefs are biblical” (from my biblical point of view), now I can say, ” my beliefs are completely Christian no matter which way the wind it blowing”. That’s a lot more comforting.
LikeLike
Tom,
“But it isn’t obvious. The Catholic claim IS that the magisterium is supported by an external source–the scriptures*.
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
That of course follows the “thou art Peter” verse that Catholics claim establishes the papacy. Now Protestants dispute that’s what Jesus was doing, but the point is that the Catholic claim is internally consistent, not just a random verse enlisted out of context. Jesus gives Peter [or somebody!] some sort of power and authority here–whether that equals the Catholic Church, well, that’s a separate question.
______
*By contrast, since the New Testament isn’t even written until 50 years after Jesus’ death, sola scriptura cannot prove sola scriptura. By his own words, Jesus leaves behind some sort of “church,” not a Bible.”
High-five! 🙂 JK
LikeLike
http://www.saveoursacrament.org/Suggested.html
LikeLike
Susan
Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“But it isn’t obvious. The Catholic claim IS that the magisterium is supported by an external source–the scriptures*.
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
That of course follows the “thou art Peter” verse that Catholics claim establishes the papacy. Now Protestants dispute that’s what Jesus was doing, but the point is that the Catholic claim is internally consistent, not just a random verse enlisted out of context. Jesus gives Peter [or somebody!] some sort of power and authority here–whether that equals the Catholic Church, well, that’s a separate question.
______
*By contrast, since the New Testament isn’t even written until 50 years after Jesus’ death, sola scriptura cannot prove sola scriptura. By his own words, Jesus leaves behind some sort of “church,” not a Bible.”
High-five! 🙂 JK
Just telling it like it is, based on the arguments made by each side. One of my heroes is Dennis Prager—“I value clarity over agreement.”
And just to keep my cred as an equal-opportunity offender: The Protestant polemic, that the Catholic Church developed certain theologies that qualify as “sola ecclesia” [of questionable “external” verification, i.e., via the scriptures]–such as the Mary stuff, and the indulgences and simony scandals–is also valid. Whether it justified schism is a legitimate question. The early Reformers wanted to reform, but the people and the princes kind of took the religious revolution for a ride.
Hulkuva job here, Susan–besieged on all sides, being told you should go study philosophy, enduring all the condescending usual slings and arrows. I’ve never seen a female dig in and hold her ground like this in the usually all-male synagogue of internet Christianity. Props, bigtime.
LikeLike
I like Tom. Nice guy.
LikeLike
Kenny, not only do you have a problem with the 3rd commandment, you got a problem following an argument. Which is why nobody reads, as in responds, to your “arguments”. An appeal to “The Church”, reason or history is insufficient to establish the basis for something that is of divine faith. That only is established from Scripture.
Rom. 10:17 faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom. 14:23 for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Yet you keep trying to get there from here in appealing to reason and history – neither of which are infallible – to establish your infallible church. Again, good luck with that. The church, reason or history are never objects of saving faith or infallible.
But we are told that Jesus said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church” and therefore QED everything Rome claims for herself is true and she is the infallible church.
Or if we prefer DVD’s account:
By his own words, Jesus leaves behind some sort of “church,” not a Bible.”
Snicker. Snort. Guffaw. And where pray tell do we “read” (hint) Jesus “in his own words”? How do we know Jesus “in his own words” said this? (Externally, mind you; internally it is of faith.) Where exactly did he say this “in his own words”? In the lost apostolic oral traditions? No? Come on, you got to be kidding. It can’t be in the inscripturated apostolic traditions aka as the NT, – which incidentally Jesus also says “cannot be broken” Jn. 10:35 – can it?
IOW an appeal to Scripture necessitates sola Scriptura necessitates tota scriptura. Not just one verse in a hurry to move the discussion on to reason or history or whatever.
But then the horns of the dilemma is that Rome has to appeal to Scripture at some point in the narrative, however briefly and superficially, otherwise her credentials, such as they are, lack even the semblance of credibility.
On the other hand, any appeal whatsoever to Scripture by Rome opens the door to the pandora’s box of having Rome submit to the full scrutiny of Scripture, which of course, is why she’s not interested. Vide Trent and Vatican I & II.
Which is also why, whenever Rome could get away with it, she repressed the vernacular translations of Scripture and to this day the sacrifice of the mass is pre-eminently all about the sacrament and not the preaching or teaching of Scripture.
As well the gross ignorance of Scripture demonstrated by the papists here and over at CtC.
(And history too for that matter; speaking of which:
I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicaea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicaea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witnesses for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason. [John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Answer to Maximinus, Book II, XIV – (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 282.])
But hey, if you want to keep beating your wife, have at it, which is the traditional way of saying if you want to keep asking and asserting irrelevant questions and arguments, feel free, but only do it somewhere else please.
cheers
LikeLike
“By their fruits ye shall know them” thing is not working out for you guys.
You sure about that, DVD? What about “Beware when all men speak well of you”.
Or are you just talking to yourself and your
extremelynegative opinion doesn’t count here?Nice hamfisted ecumenical try though.
As in don’t bother.
LikeLike
Whether it justified schism is a legitimate question. The early Reformers wanted to reform, but the people and the princes kind of took the religious revolution for a ride.
Nope. The pope exed Luther who was willing to submit to the pope as long as the gospel was preached. Rome said no and has continued to blame the prots ever since for schismatically leaving even though Rome had insisted on leaving the gospel in the first place. So go figure.
LikeLike
Once we make that submission of will and intellect (the Protestant to Scripture alone; the Catholic to the Church), then comes the second question of interpreting the teaching of the Rule of Faith. And here, the Catholic is at a distinct advantage. Because he submits to a living Rule, that can (and does) continually restate, clarify, and expound upon dogma. The living guide also explicitly identifies some truths as dogmatic, to be held de fide, and distinguishes these truths from others.
The Protestant Rule of Faith, however, is presumed to be so clear as to need no further infallible clarification. It is this claim and the history of its application that I have sought to examine in the post.
Anders is confused.
Yeah, I know, the ‘living interpreter jazz’.
As if Christ didn’t promise the Holy Spirit to his apostles and church Jn.16:13,Eph. 6:17, in inspiration and illumination respectively, as well as also promising pastors and teachers to expound and explain the self interpreting rule of Scripture Eph. 4:11.
Which is exactly what the Roman church in its presumption leaves out of the equation. According to her the Spirit cannot and does not blow as it wills like the wind, but is locked up in her ex opere operato dispension of the sacraments, apostolic succession – not of doctrine, but genealogically – and the petrine chrism of the throne.
Regardless, Jesus said My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me John 10:27.
LikeLike
“I like Tom. Nice guy.”
Then we both feel good about him being on your side.
LikeLike
Muddy, you blew it.
LikeLike
Tom, don’t tell Mark David Hall.
LikeLike
Susan, so when Tetzel comes to town selling indulgences that free souls from purgatory and that build structures in Rome, that’s what you expect with a church this size. Or when the bishops cover up child abuse to protect assets, that’s what you’d expect.
This is like American communists defending Stalin. And conversing with you is pointless. It’s not that your mind is made up. It’s that you don’t have a mind.
LikeLike
So, yeah, I had some technical difficulties last night, first on my laptop then my iPad. First world problems, as my daughter would say.
But the point of the textless link was the assault of the RC on the institution of marriage. Did you marry a Protestant? Eh, we’ll just make it not count. Are you well connected? Put a little something in the offering plate and we’ll give that annulment extra careful consideration. And for you folks that’s perversion of a sacrament.
LikeLike
Duderino, people looked at Halley’s Comet because it doesn’t happen too often. If the Mudster knows something it’s hard for him to idle back.
Maybe Cross was watching that game. Heh, heh.
LikeLike
Whaever Muddelmann.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 1, 2014 at 9:36 pm
The whole point of the exercise here is to determine whether Rome’s claims are worthy of belief. Are they? Or aren’t they? Yes or no.
If not, then they’ve got a whole lot of ‘splainin’ to do. If they are, then by all means, genuflect.
But most of us here have considered not simply the Biblical evidence, but historical evidence, and yes, even evidence from “tradition” (consider that the Orthodox rejected the papal claims as well – see the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon: – Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome. (This indicates Rome’s “honour” is due to its being the capital.)
You’re moving the goalpost here. The question is “is Rome what it says it is?” “Is Roman Authority what it claims to be?”
It takes a “yes” or “no” answer.
And if you move outside of that tight little circle of after-the-fact argumentation that Rome puts up in its own defense, there are not only crickets, but there is, given historical research of Rome at that period (and this is not a sola scriptura argument), there is a very clear re-construction of what the city was like, what authority structures in the city were like, what the Christian churches in the city were like – where they likely worshipped, the kinds of worship they likely practiced.
You may care to focus on the word “likely” there and say, “oh, but that’s not certainty”.
However, each “likely” cuts across your “certainty” – your certainty being the unverifiable notion that Peter had “successors” and that these “successors” had the claimed charism
In fact the highly likely reconstruction of the earliest church(es) at Rome (and also the church(es) at Rome for the next several centuries are very clear about the contentions of power among competing presbyters, the fighting and factionalism as to “who was greatest”.
Perhaps you will say (as I’ve heard) “Oh, but the infighting only proves that there was something
No, the inffighting only proves (something we already know) that humans are power-and-glory hungry, and ancient Romans were especially conscious of status.
If these men were “leaders of the church” or even trying to be “leaders of the church”, conscious of their mission, they would understand Christ’s words about who is “greatest”,
Too, you fail to consider the character of the very God who you claim is giving this “charism”. Jonah was a prophet, claiming to speak infallibly for the Lord. But when he failed to do this, the Lord let him know about it.
Why does God flip-flop his position, from requiring absolute obedience from his spokespersons, to enabling them to fight pretty much unhindered (here’s a timeline that I’ve published in the past):
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-church-authority-as-harmful-impulse.html
The study of history is not sola scriptura. The study of the patristics is not sola scriptura. You have erected a straw man.
This proves nothing. There are all sorts of connections that it fails to make.
It fails to explain how the promise of Mt 16:18 has reference specifically to “Peter.”
It fails to explain how the promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.
It fails to explain how the promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
It fails to explain how the office is “perpetual”
It fails to explain how precisely Peter resided in “Rome”
It fails to explain how Peter was the “bishop” of Rome
It fails to explain how Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome
It fails to explain that there was only “one” bishop at a time
It fails to explain how Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”
It fails to explain how (or that) Peter “ordained” a successor
It fails to explain how this supposed ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.
It fails to explain how this succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.
It fails to explain why Mark and Luke, while they also recount the Caesarea Philippi conversation between Jesus and Peter (“you are the Christ”), why do they omit all reference to the all-important commission of Peter? Why do they omit all reference to that part of Jesus’ conversation which grants to Peter his alleged priority over the other apostles. This is, for the “Roman Catholic”, the very heart and soul of the Lord’s teaching ministry. Omitted.
It fails to explain why, after Caesarea Phillipi, do the disciples continue to dispute among themselves who was the greatest? They must not have understood the commission.
It fails to explain why, if Peter was the head of the church, why was he the one “sent” [and “by whom”] to investigate the Samaritan revival, instead of being the one doing the sending (Acts 8:14)?
It fails to explain why wf Peter was in fact the undisputed head of the church, why did the other apostles and the brotherhood in general feel they could challenge his involvement in the Cornelius incident?
It fails to explain why Pauls list Peter as only one of the “pillars” in Jerusalem, and second after James at that? And why at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, over which James quite obviously presided, is Peter merely the first speaker and not the president of that council?
It fails to explain why can Paul say of the Jerusalem leadership (James, Peter, and John), those “reputed to be pillars,” that they only “seemed to be something”. “What they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality (Gal 2:6)
It fails to explain why, if Peter was Bishop and Pastor of Rome, and if it was Paul’s established missionary practice “to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation,” why does Paul declare that he had longed to come to Rome and had purposed many time to come there “so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong,” and “in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles”. Would not such activity among them on Paul’s part have been both a denial of his own missionary policy and an affront to Peter’s ministry? Do his words not suggest that Paul knew of no apostle having labored in Rome?
It fails to explain why, if Peter was the living, earthly head of the church at that time, does he disappear completely from Luke’s history after Acts 15, with very few references to him, apart from his own two letters, in the rest of the New Testament?
Tom, do you have good explanations for all of those things? All of those reasons why we might say that we reject Rome’s claims to authority?
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 1, 2014 at 9:36 pm (continued)
Some of these “some” have been among the greatest “Catholics” in history:
Keep in mind that both Tertullian and Origen wrote later than the publication of the apocryphal “Acts of Peter” (circa 180 AD) – and that Origen actually quotes from this admittedly fictitious work in his Commentary on Genesis – also cited in Hippolytus – this is only a portion of what Eamon Duffy has in mind as he notes “These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church — Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or the manner or place of his death…”
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 1, 2014 at 9:36 pm (continued)
The appeal to Aramaic is really ecclesiastical vaporware. Because we do not have the “Aramaic original”, and the “Kepha/kepha” wordplay is pure speculation. There are other words that could have been used, and in fact, when the Gospel of Matthew was translated into Syriac (not more than 100-150 years after the Gospel of Matthew was written), in most cases, two different words are actually used.
No, but the historical re-construction of ancient Rome (and the ancient Roman church) that I alluded to above IS #winning. It is a positive contribution to the knowledge of the period. It is all based on historical research, and patristics research.
How does this prohibition of yours not apply to Rome as well?
You’re making an assumption here, all of which are unfounded. First is the assumption that, what, Protestants don’t have an alternative story for how Rome got into power? I’ve provided that above – see my “timeline”.
But really, you’re not paying attention, because the Orthodox rejected the papacy long before Luther and Calvin did. In fact, Archbishop Roland Minnerath, who studied this topic for the Vatican, in fact related that the Eastern churches never did accept Roman claims.
So this “immovable object” claim of yours is completely nonsensical.
LikeLike
Tom — here’s my “footnoted” stab at that positive articulation of what the ancient city of Rome was like, and what the churches were like within that ancient city of Rome:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/house-churches-in-rome-links.html
For example.
LikeLike
But John, how would household churches have been organized enough to launch the crusades? For that you need a Pope who thinks he’s superior to the state.
LikeLike
Ken, as Mikelmann said, we are pretty much equal opportunity stone throwers. We don’t have an infallible human magisterium that we’re trying to justify, so we don’t have at stake what you guys have when it comes to acknowledging the errors and failures of our church authorities. Of course, when I was an RC, we were a lot more forthcoming about the gap between who our heirarchy was and who they were supposed to be, and for the most part, so were they. I’ll grant, to a degree, that Ratzinger is a different animal, but then he’s a German aristocrat/autocrat. But, this is why I don’t recognize the prot-catholic trad as I recount my upbringing. You guys are a recent manifestation.
LikeLike
Erik, eventually the household churches at Rome (the leaders of whom fought) eventually (after hundreds of years of infighting) saw the emergence of a single monarchical bishop, who became wealthy after the conversion of Constantine. This process is referred to by Roman Catholics as “development”.
As for popes thinking they were superior to the state, this came about through further “development”, which in this instance involved the use of forged documents (i.e., “the Donation of Constantine, the Pseudo-Isidore decretals) as well as a major schism, whereby the Eastern churches who rejected papal claims were removed from the sphere of the popes.
LikeLike
Tom,
*By contrast, since the New Testament isn’t even written until 50 years after Jesus’ death, sola scriptura cannot prove sola scriptura. By his own words, Jesus leaves behind some sort of “church,” not a Bible.
That’s just wrong. First, the NT is being written within 15 years or so of Jesus’ death. Late 40s for Galatians and James. Second, Scripture exists as soon as Jesus starts talking, just not in written form. They have the apostolic tradition, the preaching of Jesus and the apostles.
Look, why don’t you just become Roman Catholic if you believe Scripture follows the establishment of the church.
Revelation establishes the church and Scripture is the written depository of that revelation. So in actuality, Scripture precedes the church.
And the Roman position that Scripture confirms the Roman Catholic Church is tenuous at best. It is at least no better than the claim that Scripture confirms the Protestant or EO church. My point is this, and that is that the CTC apologetic claims some principled distinction for itself that it denies to Protestants. At the end of the day, however, we are left on similar footing. RC have to depend on self-authentication as much as Protestants do, we’re just honest about it.
LikeLike
Susan,
The thing is about the Catholic Church, it will never (under the auspices of right and true authority) give moral approval of illmoral behavior or teach contrary to the faith.
So who determines when it is exercising true and right authority? Those popes who authorized the Crusades thought they were exercising right and true authority. Who are you to claim otherwise? Or are the Crusades all kosher. What about the death sentences on heretics? If those were good, do you want them to come back? If you don’t want them back, does that mean they were given apart from true and right authority.
The RC Church in many places has approved behavior that we would deem immoral. How do we know when this approval was not done by true authority? When it tells us? How then do you know what it is saying today is being exercised by true authority.
Do you not see the vicious circle? If the pope today told you to go out and kill a random stranger, how do you know he is not exercising his proper authority?
LikeLike
Robert
Posted January 3, 2014 at 10:36 am |
the Roman position that Scripture confirms the Roman Catholic Church is tenuous at best.
You give it far too much credit:
https://oldlife.org/2013/12/liberalism-rampant/comment-page-10/#comment-112230
LikeLike
Mike,
but using ordinary means of analysis we don’t see your verifiable claims making the cut.
Yes but even when using ordinary means of analysis to survey verifiable claims, if one brings a hermeneutic of skepticism, any historical difficulties or apparent contradictions can be seen as to great to overcome! Consider the textual criticism that has caused numerous “scholars” such as Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludeman to abandon their faith in the word. Consider the hundreds and hundreds of “apparent contradictions” and “historical difficulties” that are in the bible that have caused many men to stumble. Thinking of Dan Barker and his now infamous “easter challenge” in particular here. Think of the formidable philosophical and scientific arguments of naturalism that can be used to cast the shadow of doubt over Christianity as a whole (thinking of Stephen Law or Quinten Smith). These are all “verifiable” and yet (gasp!) the “majority of scholars” will side with these men before they side with you. What I am suggesting is that if you are going to be an insatiable skeptic, one who is looking for errors rather than searching for truth, then how can it be that you are even a Christian? Some of the problems you raise against the Church are far less incredulous than other Christian claims that you already accept! I’m not saying you should be “gullible” and fall for any religious claim at all since you already believe in the miraculous…. But at the same time it seems hypocritical to constantly read appeals to “scholarly majority” when that same “scholarly majority” condemns your own theology! How can it be that the early church was so confused and divided on every RC issue under the sun and yet when we start talking canon or trinity or two.natures BOOM! Shizam! Everything is crystal clear and uncontroversial. That’s bogus. There needs to be a more fair and even handed approach somehow.
LikeLike
Bob S,
Honestly…. You really can’t be older than 25 years old….
Kenny, not only do you have a problem with the 3rd commandment, you got a problem following an argument. Which is why nobody reads, as in responds, to your “arguments”. An appeal to “The Church”, reason or history is insufficient to establish the basis for something that is of divine faith. That only is established from Scripture.
Says who Bob?!? You haven’t presented any argument that this should be the case. You are merely *assuming* that such is true. BTW does every single book of scripture claim for it self divine authorship? Why Luke? Why Hebrews? Why Mark? How did you come to know that these books were inspired if not by history and reason? Did an Angel tell you? A feeling in your tummy? Without appealing to ridiculous presuppositional apologetics we all have to begin with reason and history and work our way out from there.
Rom. 10:17 faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom. 14:23 for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
what makes you think the “word of God” means the scriptures alone? You have assumed that reality into the passage.
Yet you keep trying to get there from here in appealing to reason and history – neither of which are infallible – to establish your infallible church. Again, good luck with that. The church, reason or history are never objects of saving faith or infallible.
You had to appeal to reason and history to establish the infallibility of scripture. Yet to do the same with the Church is a fallacy somehow? You’ve got some splaining to do.
But we are told that Jesus said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church” and therefore QED everything Rome claims for herself is true and she is the infallible church.
How do you make sense of this verse? It is undeniable that no one taught sola fide or sola scriptura for the first 1500 years of Christian history. During that same time everyone was worshipping bread and praying to saints and generating Mary. The horror! Latin Mass! The agony! If we are to assume the truth of the reformation it would seem that the gates of hell actually did prevail. Until of course the most brilliant, prophetic and amazing men evuhhhh graced our presence at the reformation.
an appeal to Scripture necessitates sola Scriptura necessitates tota scriptura. Not just one verse in a hurry to move the discussion on to reason or history or whatever.
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t necessitate anything like that Dr. Bob.
But then the horns of the dilemma is that Rome has to appeal to Scripture at some point in the narrative, however briefly and superficially, otherwise her credentials, such as they are, lack even the semblance of credibility.
On the other hand, any appeal whatsoever to Scripture by Rome opens the door to the pandora’s box of having Rome submit to the full scrutiny of Scripture, which of course, is why she’s not interested. Vide Trent and Vatican I & II.
Of course the Church does not mind the full scrutiny of scripture. We merely deny that we must go by the scriptures alone….. Dilemma solved.
Which is also why, whenever Rome could get away with it, she repressed the vernacular translations of Scripture and to this day the sacrifice of the mass is pre-eminently all about the sacrament and not the preaching or teaching of Scripture.
so ignorant.
But hey, if you want to keep beating your wife, have at it, which is the traditional way of saying if you want to keep asking and asserting irrelevant questions and arguments, feel free, but only do it somewhere else please
in your last post you prattled on about how I need to brush up on my philosophy… Only to grossly misunderstand the RC argument and “first axioms”…. Which should have embarrassed you enough to go away… But instead you accuse ME of not following your nonexistent argument and introducing bogus and silly topics…. All the while typing away all the most ridiculous and outdated simpleton arguments available.go to aomin.org and learn something about polemics. Then, when your ready, come play
LikeLike
Kenneth, it’s not that I’m sitting in the seat of a skeptic with arms folded demanding overwhelming proof. I don’t have to see the resurrection to believe it. But in the present case it’s not that I lack a certain quantam of evidence for your claims, but that I possess facts that defeat your claims. Big difference between weighing the quantity of evidence and possessing counter-evidence. We know where the bodies are.
LikeLike
John,
You are aware there are scholars who disagree with some of Lampe and other scholars’ analyses you cite concerning early Rome correct? You are aware scholars can have biases and presuppositions that can influence their analysis right? In fact your triablogue buddies are fond of pointing that out in their critcisms of consensus in the scientific community in things like evolution and yec and global warming. Yet with history it seems your cautious approach vanishes. Historical analysis is mainly abductive and inductive, not deductive. How do you adjudicate between the scholarly claims to make these definitive judgments?
LikeLike
Tom,
I like Prager too. Clarity isn’t the same a truth though, otherwise he’d be Catholic.:)
“And just to keep my cred as an equal-opportunity offender: The Protestant polemic, that the Catholic Church developed certain theologies that qualify as “sola ecclesia” [of questionable “external” verification, i.e., via the scriptures]–such as the Mary stuff, and the indulgences and simony scandals–is also valid. Whether it justified schism is a legitimate question. The early Reformers wanted to reform, but the people and the princes kind of took the religious revolution for a ride.”
Yeah, I wasn’t sure whether or not you were Catholic. Knowing this, I’m happy to see that you read Feser. I read “The Last Superstition” last year and it saved me from atheism.
“Hulkuva job here, Susan–besieged on all sides, being told you should go study philosophy, enduring all the condescending usual slings and arrows. I’ve never seen a female dig in and hold her ground like this in the usually all-male synagogue of internet Christianity. Props, bigtime.”
You know what, if I didn’t see the epistemic necessity for the Magisterium, I wouldn’t be so secure going up against these guys who know history so well. As a Catholic, I’m in good intellectual company even if I have a hard time articulating it. I’ve been thumbing through Aquinas for years; and I don’t think anyone can do that without “something” becoming a part of them somehow, so I don’t worry about their insults.
~Susan
LikeLike
Mike,
but that I possess facts that defeat your claims. Big difference between weighing the quantity of evidence and possessing counter-evidence. We know where the bodies are.
are you quoting Richard Dawkins here? Or was that Dan Barker? Never mind all that. I’m curious. What are the facts that’s you think are so damaging to the RC claim? Whenever I was struggling not to be RC I couldn’t find any without a very reasonable explanation to.counter it. The best work I ever read against the RCC was Salmons the infallibility of the Church. But that ultimately fell short.
LikeLike
@Susan
“…epistemic necessity for the Magisterium…”
I guess this gets to the crux of my question. If the magisterium is epistemologically necessary, how did Israel get by without a magisterium (infallible or otherwise)?
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted January 3, 2014 at 8:39 am | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 1, 2014 at 9:36 pm
(Quoting Robert): What is inherent in the Roman Magisterium that says it is binding that is lacking in Scripture? Scripture claims binding authority for itself no less than Rome does. Why do I accept Rome’s claims at face value and not Scripture’s? I’m still waiting for some RC to give me the external authority that corroborates Rome’s claims. All I get is crickets.
TVD: Immovable Object game. What possible proof would satisfy you?
The whole point of the exercise here is to determine whether Rome’s claims are worthy of belief. Are they? Or aren’t they? Yes or no.
If not, then they’ve got a whole lot of ‘splainin’ to do. If they are, then by all means, genuflect.
But most of us here have considered not simply the Biblical evidence, but historical evidence, and yes, even evidence from “tradition” (consider that the Orthodox rejected the papal claims as well – see the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon: – Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome. (This indicates Rome’s “honour” is due to its being the capital.)
If put under the same gun, you can’t even prove there’s a God, let alone a Son and Holy Spirit.
You’re moving the goalpost here. The question is “is Rome what it says it is?” “Is Roman Authority what it claims to be?”
It takes a “yes” or “no” answer.
And if you move outside of that tight little circle of after-the-fact argumentation that Rome puts up in its own defense, there are not only crickets, but there is, given historical research of Rome at that period (and this is not a sola scriptura argument), there is a very clear re-construction of what the city was like, what authority structures in the city were like, what the Christian churches in the city were like – where they likely worshipped, the kinds of worship they likely practiced.
You may care to focus on the word “likely” there and say, “oh, but that’s not certainty”.
However, each “likely” cuts across your “certainty” – your certainty being the unverifiable notion that Peter had “successors” and that these “successors” had the claimed charism
In fact the highly likely reconstruction of the earliest church(es) at Rome (and also the church(es) at Rome for the next several centuries are very clear about the contentions of power among competing presbyters, the fighting and factionalism as to “who was greatest”.
Perhaps you will say (as I’ve heard) “Oh, but the infighting only proves that there was something
No, the inffighting only proves (something we already know) that humans are power-and-glory hungry, and ancient Romans were especially conscious of status.
If these men were “leaders of the church” or even trying to be “leaders of the church”, conscious of their mission, they would understand Christ’s words about who is “greatest”,
Too, you fail to consider the character of the very God who you claim is giving this “charism”. Jonah was a prophet, claiming to speak infallibly for the Lord. But when he failed to do this, the Lord let him know about it.
Why does God flip-flop his position, from requiring absolute obedience from his spokespersons, to enabling them to fight pretty much unhindered (here’s a timeline that I’ve published in the past):
135-150 ad: the church at Rome is ruled by a plurality of presbyters who quarrel about status and honor. (Shepherd of Hermas). “They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.”
Also note in Hermas: “Clement’s” “job” is to “send books abroad.” — Peter Lampe does not think this Clement is the same individual from 1 Clement, but the time frame is appropriate.
235: Hippolytus and Pontianus are exiled from Rome by the emperor “because of street fighting between their followers” (Collins citing Cerrato, Oxford 2002).
258: Cyprian (Carthage/west) and Firmilian (Caesarea/east) both go apoplectic when Stephen tries to exercise authority outside of Rome.
306: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins)
308: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins again).
325: Council of Nicea: Alexandria has authority over Egypt and Libya, just as “a similar custom exists with the Bishop of Rome.” The Bishop of Jerusalem is to be honored.
366: Followers of “pope” Damasus [hired gravediggers armed with pick-axes] massacre 137 followers of rival “pope” Ursinus following the election of both men to the papacy.
381: Constantinople: Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome. (This indicates Rome’s “honour” is due to its being the capital.)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-church-authority-as-harmful-impulse.html
But since your bar–your own standard of proof– is sola scriptura,
The study of history is not sola scriptura. The study of the patristics is not sola scriptura. You have erected a straw man.
Catholicism justifies itself via “Thou art Peter,” Jesus explicitly establishing a church in that same sentence—against which hell cannot prevail, his promise that “I will always be with you,” &c.
This proves nothing. There are all sorts of connections that it fails to make.
It fails to explain how the promise of Mt 16:18 has reference specifically to “Peter.”
It fails to explain how the promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.
It fails to explain how the promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
It fails to explain how the office is “perpetual”
It fails to explain how precisely Peter resided in “Rome”
It fails to explain how Peter was the “bishop” of Rome
It fails to explain how Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome
It fails to explain that there was only “one” bishop at a time
It fails to explain how Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”
It fails to explain how (or that) Peter “ordained” a successor
It fails to explain how this supposed ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.
It fails to explain how this succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.
It fails to explain why Mark and Luke, while they also recount the Caesarea Philippi conversation between Jesus and Peter (“you are the Christ”), why do they omit all reference to the all-important commission of Peter? Why do they omit all reference to that part of Jesus’ conversation which grants to Peter his alleged priority over the other apostles. This is, for the “Roman Catholic”, the very heart and soul of the Lord’s teaching ministry. Omitted.
It fails to explain why, after Caesarea Phillipi, do the disciples continue to dispute among themselves who was the greatest? They must not have understood the commission.
It fails to explain why, if Peter was the head of the church, why was he the one “sent” [and “by whom”] to investigate the Samaritan revival, instead of being the one doing the sending (Acts 8:14)?
It fails to explain why wf Peter was in fact the undisputed head of the church, why did the other apostles and the brotherhood in general feel they could challenge his involvement in the Cornelius incident?
It fails to explain why Pauls list Peter as only one of the “pillars” in Jerusalem, and second after James at that? And why at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, over which James quite obviously presided, is Peter merely the first speaker and not the president of that council?
It fails to explain why can Paul say of the Jerusalem leadership (James, Peter, and John), those “reputed to be pillars,” that they only “seemed to be something”. “What they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality (Gal 2:6)
It fails to explain why, if Peter was Bishop and Pastor of Rome, and if it was Paul’s established missionary practice “to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation,” why does Paul declare that he had longed to come to Rome and had purposed many time to come there “so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong,” and “in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles”. Would not such activity among them on Paul’s part have been both a denial of his own missionary policy and an affront to Peter’s ministry? Do his words not suggest that Paul knew of no apostle having labored in Rome?
It fails to explain why, if Peter was the living, earthly head of the church at that time, does he disappear completely from Luke’s history after Acts 15, with very few references to him, apart from his own two letters, in the rest of the New Testament?
Tom, do you have good explanations for all of those things? All of those reasons why we might say that we reject Rome’s claims to authority?
John, first you call me name, then you expect me to read lengthy diatribes then dialogue with you? That’s pretty nervy.
But I did skim your objections, almost all of which are well-familiar. You don’t seem to appreciate that my observations are formal–not whether Catholicism’s Petrine claims are God’s truth [we have no cosmic way of knowing short of “religious experience”], but whether they are internally consistent. I think they are.
Many many posts ago, Stellman or Cross was quoted as saying he found himself unable to defend sola scriptura. That would be judging his {Protestant] faith by HIS own standards, not mine or anyone else’s. That’s really the only way we can fruitfully discuss these things, by the other fellow’s standards.
You write:
The whole point of the exercise here is to determine whether Rome’s claims are worthy of belief. Are they? Or aren’t they? Yes or no.
That’s the point of YOUR exercise, I suppose. I can’t really get into that. As I also wrote, you can’t be a litigant and the judge and jury as the same time. They are “worthy of belief” simply because so many people believe them–and that goes for your beliefs too. It’s my belief that Mormonism’s truth claims [the golden plates, God lives on Planet Kolob] are unbelievable, but there’s no point in haranguing Mormons with that. Mazel tov.
Now if it’s OK, I’d find our interactions unenjoyable, and I’d prefer not to continue them. Perhaps the climate will improve at some future date. Peace.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted January 3, 2014 at 1:07 pm | Permalink
CVD, before making such a claim, you ought to be able to say precisely who disagrees with Lampe (not many) and why (it might be Bernard Green who doesn’t give very much of a reason whatsoever).
For that matter, given that you seem to disagree with him, why don’t you work through his work, say precisely where you disagree with him and why?
In this case, not many scholars disagree with Lampe – neither on the conservative side, nor the liberal side. His method is extremely thorough. He seems to incorporate every scrap of paper from Rome in the years 50-200 into his analysis.
I searched far and wide with people (scholars and also associates in my circles) who would disagree with Lampe’s analysis, and I didn’t find any.
With that said, I’ve cited dozens of scholars in the links I’ve provided – not just Lampe (in case you were thinking that I’ve only got one source). Major biblical scholars, including conservative sources, whom I’m inclined to trust.
We are talking two different subjects, two different sets of scholars, different sets of data, etc. It would be wrong to make this comparison without talking specifics. They don’t align neatly.
No one will doubt that history plays a role in the Christian faith. It’s critical to us that Israel has a real history, that Christ was born, lived, died, and was resurrected in the context of “real history”.
Of course, for many centuries, Rome’s apologetic was based on history – on the supposed historical fact that Peter founded the church at Rome, that he was bishop there (and the “historical” account most frequently cited by Rome – for centuries – was that he was bishop there for 25 years.
That kind of thing was the basis for “definitive judgments”.
Now that the historical accounts provided by Rome (of Peter, but not of Jesus!) have been disproved by history, Roman Catholics are all in favor of becoming “presuppositional” now- challenging on the basis of presuppositions rather than history.
I find that to be very telling.
LikeLike
Tom, all I can say is that my opinion of you hasn’t changed. You threw out a citation, and I just wanted to show you that those citations of yours are severely challenged. That you can ignore that sort of thing — “not my taste” — just confirms what an empty-shelled blowhard you really are.
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted January 3, 2014 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
Tom, all I can say is that my opinion of you hasn’t changed. You threw out a citation, and I just wanted to show you that those citations of yours are severely challenged. That you can ignore that sort of thing — “not my taste” — just confirms what an empty-shelled blowhard you really are.
By now it should be clear I’m not going to return your namecalling. If you keep striking someone who will not strike you back, the shame is yours, brother.
LikeLike
Kenloses, and think of all the historicism that arose post Vatican II and then consider its relationship to the contents of this post.
LikeLike
Susan, just to keep you on your toes, think about this — historicism in the church — and how epistemic certainty may only extend to a select few among the RC contingent.
LikeLike
sdb, Israel had the Pharisees. ba dop bop.
LikeLike
Tom, now you’re doing pastoral theology?
LikeLike
DGH,
I can understand the head scratching in regards to the second Vatican Council. Its a legitimate beef. We will see how the dust settles and whether or not the gates of Hades prevail. I got my money on Christ and the Rock
LikeLike
Kenneth- . I got my money on Christ and the Rock
Me: when Jimmy Akin has to waste ink refuting this Onion-worthy satire,
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/dont-fall-for-this-pope-francis-hoax-5-things-to-know-and-share
I’ll put my money on the forces of darkness
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 3, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
By now it should be clear I’m not going to return your namecalling…
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
… johnloses
LikeLike
@dgh Yeah, I guess that’s my point. There was an interpretive authority (as Susan noted earlier in this thread), and it was judged according to the scriptures and found wanting (as sean and I pointed out in response to Susan). If there is no philosophical problem with Jesus judging the official interpreters of the “canon” by the “canon” even though they delivered the canon to the people (and disagreed among themselves about what counted as part of the canon), why is it a problem for us today? If it is indeed problematic, then what was Jesus up to? Was his appeal to scripture to critique official “T”radition invalid? l haven’t seen a serious stab at this problem from the paradigmers. It sure seems like a glaring weakness to me.
LikeLike
I ran across a “Parish Handbook” for one of our local Catholic churches. 26 page booklet. There is only 1/2 page on “Priesthood”:
“Priests are many things to many people:
* Dedicated Catholics who cherish Church traditions.
* Spiritual leaders who are open to how God changes them and others
* Examples of faithfulness to everyone
* Men who enjoy life”
That’s it?
The rest of the book could have been from an evangelical church with the exception of a few Catholic distinctives:
(Under “Parish Organizations”):
“EUCHARISTIC ADORATION
Parishioners who choose to participate in Eucharistic Adoration have the opportunity for a scheduled hour of prayer weekly in the Chapel before the Blessed Sacrament, which continually and publicly witnesses the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist”
“PERMANENT DIACONATE
The Second Vatican Council restored the ministry of the permanent diaconate at the discretion of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and with the approval of the local bishop.”
What had happened to the diaconate before Vatican II?
Not a word on the Pope that I could find anywhere.
LikeLike
You know what, if I didn’t see the epistemic necessity for the Magisterium, . . .
. . . . I can understand the head scratching in regards to the second Vatican Council. Its a legitimate beef. We will see how the dust settles and whether or not the gates of Hades prevail. I got my money on Christ and the Rock
Yep, gotta love all that epistemic necessity/certainty/unity jazz.
It resolves everything/nothing.
What? You got a problem with that?
No, just that it’s called speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Of course when Alexandrovich blurted the same out laughing in Fr. Cadden’s freshman religion class, he got sent down to Fr. Goebel, the vice principal’s office for hacks and Cadden was usually a pretty mellow dude.
Hmm. Maybe Cadden knew more about the devil’s masterpiece, as Wm. Cunningham called the Roman magisterium, then he let on.
LikeLike
Many many posts ago, Stellman or Cross was quoted as saying he found himself unable to defend sola scriptura. That would be judging his {Protestant] faith by HIS own standards, not mine or anyone else’s. That’s really the only way we can fruitfully discuss these things, by the other fellow’s standards.
One, that neither Bryan or Stellman were able to defend SS does not mean SS is necessarily undefendable. Unless non sequiturs are valid arguments in
lala landRomania.Two, when the other fellow’s standards include Scripture – as they necessarily must if we are going to keep blathering about “By his own words Jesus made a promise to his church , not a bible” which “words” are ahem, found nowhere else, but in the . . .Bible, well connect the dots with a
painttar brush, Michelangelo.Of course Kenneth darling doesn’t want to talk about the rest of the Bible, he just wants to go hyper/one way skeptic, but still, for all those “gates of hell shall not prevail” folks, Jesus also said the Scripture can’t be broken. It’s either an all or nothing deal when Scripture comes into play.
True, da Big K thinks that’s just me saying so, so don’t tell him otherwise. He just might have to find out the hard way. You know the
lake of fire“purgatory” thing – something else that isn’t found you know where, but hey that’s just meacting protbeing negative.Or we can take Augustine’s approach, another quote from the patristic era that cause paradigm explosions like heads in a Dave Chappelle KKK skit, but then Augustine never made pope, so evidently he doesn’t count.
Still Scripture is about the only thing that both sides agree on, if not that some of us find there is more in the Bible than the “gates of hell shall not prevail against
the churchRome” faction want to admit. And since they’re the ones over here on a P/R West. Confession site in the first place, it might behoove them to become all things to all men, so they don’t get pegged as your typical jesuitical interlocutor or ignorant/implicit faith-er.But hey, we’re cool with crickets too, in that substantive is of the essence however many nominal and heated responses pop up.
cheers
LikeLike
John,
“CVD, before making such a claim, you ought to be able to say precisely who disagrees with Lampe (not many) and why (it might be Bernard Green who doesn’t give very much of a reason whatsoever).”
Bernard Green in his work from 2010 is indeed one such scholar – I’m not sure why you say he gives no reason – he doesn’t just say “Lampe is wrong. Moving on,…” Other conservative scholars who disagree with your position on early Rome include the following:
William Moran’s The Government of the Church in the First Century (1913)
John Bampton’s The church in Rome in the first century (1913)
Felix Cirlot’s Apostolic Succession: is it True? (1955)
Kenneth E. Kirk’s The Apostolic Ministry –Essays on the History and the Doctrine of Episcopacy (1946)
Robert Williams’ Bishop Lists: Formation of Apostolic Succession of Bishops in Ecclesiastical Crises (2005)
“In this case, not many scholars disagree with Lampe – neither on the conservative side, nor the liberal side. His method is extremely thorough. He seems to incorporate every scrap of paper from Rome in the years 50-200 into his analysis.”
Do you agree with Lampe’s position on NT historicity and authorship driven by historical criticism? Do you think his methods that influence his analysis of the NT might influence his analysis in other historical matters? Do you agree with his other conclusions of the life of the early church outside of his views on early Rome? Do you disagree with liberal scholars who undermine the OT/NT and also incorporate “every scrap of paper” in their analysis? His analysis of the NT will obviously influence his analysis of the discontinuity/continuity of the post-Apostolic church/episcopate in early Rome.
“With that said, I’ve cited dozens of scholars in the links I’ve provided – not just Lampe (in case you were thinking that I’ve only got one source). Major biblical scholars, including conservative sources, whom I’m inclined to trust.”
I’m aware you cite multiple sources. My point is that it is not wise to for you (or Protestantism) to ground yourself to the shifting sands of historical scholarship to make theological claims. You as a conservative do not constantly re-ground yourself to the latest developments in secular or liberal biblical/exegetical scholarship as they progress. History is ever-subject to heretofore undiscovered or unconsidered documents/archaeology/ideas/analysis especially the earlier you go – as I said it is abductive/inductive not deductive – conclusions are always subject to revision – and even you admitted as much in another thread about Irenaeus/Ignatius how we might not have everything they wrote, what we have may be doctored, contemporaries might not have known of their works, they might have made stuff up, etc.
“In fact your triablogue buddies are fond of pointing that out in their critcisms of consensus in the scientific community in things like evolution and yec and global warming. Yet with history it seems your cautious approach vanishes.
We are talking two different subjects, two different sets of scholars, different sets of data, etc. It would be wrong to make this comparison without talking specifics. They don’t align neatly.”
Do you disagree that some scholars whom you cite presuppose secular history/analysis and archaeology and the like supercede the Biblical record and interpret the latter according to the former? That would be a bias/presupposition. Just like the tbloggers point out when analyzing the general consensus of the scientific community. And history and historical analysis is far less neat and tidy than science so it’s even more susceptible to the tbloggers criticisms. So I fail to see how it is wrong to make this comparison.
“No one will doubt that history plays a role in the Christian faith. It’s critical to us that Israel has a real history, that Christ was born, lived, died, and was resurrected in the context of “real history”…
Now that the historical accounts provided by Rome (of Peter, but not of Jesus!) have been disproved by history, Roman Catholics are all in favor of becoming “presuppositional” now- challenging on the basis of presuppositions rather than history.”
I agree history is important. Do you agree with scholars who say OT events have been disproved by history? Do liberal historians who believe Christ was born, lived, and died also believe in the Resurrection? Doctrine cannot be proven or disproven from competing and ever-shifting historical scholarship alone, that’s why RCism condemned modernism 100 years before Lampe and others came alone.
LikeLike
Erik: What was Abraham’s “work”? Believing God’s promises.
What is justification by faith? Believing God’s promises.
You need to square James 2 with Ephesians 2:8-9:
8″ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.”
And adding to your point from John 6
“27 Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,* which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.” 28 So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
How do we do the works of God?
BELIEVE in the One He sent.
Not EAT the One He sent.
Just like the unbelievers, looking for bread they can see and eat.
LikeLike
Susan: There is no biblical consensus amoung Protestants on whether or not infants should be baptized and you are equally hazy on how many times per moth communion should be served, to say nothing of the confusion about the real presence in the Eucharist( why’d you try to modernize it in the first place??). Can you see how it is that I’d be a bit untrusting of your ability to back up the resurrection? ( ” That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”).
Then perhaps such things aren’t to made doctrinal absolutes. Considering that the RC says that infant baptism ‘developed’ and that the Lord’s Supper was actually a communal meal – what the RC does today, is not what the apostolic church did then.
You have no absolute doctrine in the RC regarding water baptism. Of course, the RC asserts its necessity, except when they assert that it is not. Water baptism is necessary, unless it is a baptism of desire, or baptism by blood.
Then there is the rapidly expanding RC modern universalism which asserts that Christ-rejecters will be in heaven based on their “doing good.”
And I fail to grasp your connection of the Eucharist and and an inability to ‘back up the resurrection’ – perhaps you would explain?
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted January 3, 2014 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 3, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
By now it should be clear I’m not going to return your namecalling…
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
… johnloses
You left stuff out. Editing me deceptively is equal to lying about me, John. There’s a commandment about that.
Besides, that was a sentence, a statement of fact [you muffed your point], not calling you a name, the way they call “Kenneth” kenloses here, a rather shoddy diminution, esp repeated by all of you.
BTW, John, you seem to run people down all over the internet.
http://turretinfan.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/a-series-of-unfortunate-arguments-for-r2k/#comment-12249
I have to say that I’ve found D.G. Hart to be a very poor spokesperson for two kingdoms theology. He tries to be funny and he tries to be witty, and he almost always is less than clear in his explanations.
I make it Ken is very good company.
__________________
Bob S
Posted January 4, 2014 at 12:15 am | Permalink
TVD: Many many posts ago, Stellman or Cross was quoted as saying he found himself unable to defend sola scriptura. That would be judging his {Protestant] faith by HIS own standards, not mine or anyone else’s. That’s really the only way we can fruitfully discuss these things, by the other fellow’s standards.
———One, that neither Bryan or Stellman were able to defend SS does not mean SS is necessarily undefendable. Unless non sequiturs are valid arguments in lala land Romania.
Two, when the other fellow’s standards include Scripture – as they necessarily must if we are going to keep blathering about “By his own words Jesus made a promise to his church , not a bible” which “words” are ahem, found nowhere else, but in the . . .Bible, well connect the dots with a paint tar brush, Michelangelo.
Well, actually that argument won the debate on your terms over on the other thread. Sola scriptura isn’t Biblical. And to the point here, the Catholic argument uses scripture whenever possible. It does not dispute the scriptura part, only the sola.
And since they’re the ones over here on a P/R West. Confession site in the first place, it might behoove them to become all things to all men, so they don’t get pegged as your typical jesuitical interlocutor or ignorant/implicit faith-er.
But hey, we’re cool with crickets too, in that substantive is of the essence however many nominal and heated responses pop up.
Well, they mostly seem to show up to respond to Darryl’s attacks. I don’t think you have a cricket problem. And when Erik Charter showed up to their blog the other day–to stir up marginally relevant attacks/challenges
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/exposing-the-blind-side-a-reverted-catholic-looks-back/
the contrast of how they treat their guests and their forthcomingness in giving substantive replies
rather than elide via snark, attempts at cleverness or playing to the gallery…
…the gentle reader of both blogs, of both religions and their religionists, can judge for themselves.
cheers
Cheers to you, tambien. Don’t be a Scorpion, por favor.
Signed,
A Frog
______
D. G. Hart
Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:12 am | Permalink
Tom, stop assuming you are an umpire here.
If you won’t do it, somebody else will. It’s a human thing. But what goes on around here is above my poor power to add or detract, D. The fruits speak for themselves.
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted January 3, 2014 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 3, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
By now it should be clear I’m not going to return your namecalling…
Tom Van Dyke
Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
… johnloses
You left stuff out. Editing me deceptively is equal to lying about me, John. There’s a commandment about that.
Besides, that was a sentence, a statement of fact [you muffed your point], not calling you a name, the way they call “Kenneth” kenloses here, a rather shoddy diminution, esp repeated by all of you.
BTW, John, you seem to run people down all over the internet.
http://turretinfan.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/a-series-of-unfortunate-arguments-for-r2k/#comment-12249
I make it Ken is very good company.
LikeLike
Tom, it takes a fruit to know when fruits speak.
LikeLike
Tom, what’s next, an email message from Mark David Hall.
LikeLike
Susan: What was their intepretive norm, tradition or the OT writings? The reason I ask is because in Matt 23:2 Jesus says “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.…”
It looks to me like there was an authority to which the people were commanded to obey. Now if this authority were faithful to the scriptures, which were written prior to their lives, why didn’t Jesus tell the people to obey the scriptures?
What do you think the Pharisees were doing on the seat of Moses?
They were doing what Moses had been doing.
Exodus 18:
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”
15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”
Moses was dealing with legal disputes between men.
The Pharisees who were ‘seated in the seat of Moses’ were adjudicating legal matters. As JUDGES in such matters they were to be submitted to. Jesus told His disciples to OBEY them – WHEN it was a judicial matter. Jesus told His disciples to BEWARE their TEACHING.
The RC takes this example to declare their authority and demand obedience to their every command de jour. Jumping upon any passage that they might can utilize to bolster their claims to authority and the right to command the hoi poloi’s obedience. While completely ignoring Jesus’ MULTIPLE warnings to His disciples to BEWARE their teaching rather than submissively drinking the koolaid.
Jesus followed His own teaching both when He submitted to their *false* legal judgement against Him AND when He IGNORED their false teachings (and taught His disciples to beware the leaven of their teaching) based on their sacred traditions.
The Roman Church cannot via their doctrines explain Jesus’ rejection of, disobedience to and warnings against the authority of the Pharisee’s TEACHINGS based primarily upon their ‘sacred traditions.’
You would think the RC would catch a clue. IIRC, the word ‘tradition’ is used approximately 18 times in the NT. All but 2 or 3 instances are absolutely negative.
How does the RC explain Jesus’ warning His disciples to BEWARE the teaching of the Pharisees?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted January 6, 2014 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
Tom, what’s next, an email message from Mark David Hall.
With friends like Dr. Bugay, Darryl, well, I speak far more highly of you behind your back.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/06/mark-david-hall-responds-to-dghart.html
Your readers are invited to examine the comments section such as
Tom Van Dyke said…
“Similarly, I contend that Reformed thinkers played a major role in developing the idea that an important (but not the only) role of government is to protect natural rights.”
Mark, DG Hart appears to contest this, at least
.”I know about Witherspoon (who according to Fea and Frazer followed Locke more than Calvin — he didn’t confess Calvin either; and when he revised the Confession of faith he didn’t mention a magistrate’s duty to protect rights).”
https://oldlife.org/2013/06/john-clarifies-confusing-johns/#comment-87977
June 11, 2013 at 3:28 PM
________
Tom Van Dyke said…
>>>>>>>>Tom, as the quotation from me shows, I am following the work of John Fea and Gregg Frazer. You may try to turn this into a debate between Mark and me, but why don’t you enlighten us all?
Actually, Darryl, I think yours is a valid challenge and brought it to the table. I anxiously await Dr. Hall’s answer.
I don’t make Mark’s claim so I’m not interested in defending it at the moment, nor am I particularly interested in your tying the 1788 American revision of the Westminster Confession to natural rights.* I’m moderating here, trying to provide you both with an honest hearing.
Nice to see you here in neutral ground.
June 11, 2013 at 4:37 PM
&c. BTW, it’s my blogbrother Jonathan Rowe who stirs up this Crossfire stuff, not me. I don’t do posts like that. Whenever I speak of you, it’s to put forth your thesis [which I find interesting] as fairly as I can, not stomp on it when you’re not there to defend it.
[And although I never disclose private communications–or even their existence, should you ever want to speak man-to-man–I’ll put forth here that Mark David Hall has never communicated with me privately, least of all to gossip about you. Dr. Hall stopped by my homeblog, American Creation, in the course of his own research, because we were working on “Calvinist resistance theory” independently..
Just so you know, Darryl. Nobody’s colluding against you. I stand on my own two feet and the only thing I abhor is mobs. That’s why when yours gets out of hand [often], the search for truth is always its victim.]
[I have noticed that when your posse has more than a single object of its attention–currently Kenneth” and “Cletus”–and the late great Susan–its “death of 1000 cuts” tactics are ineffective. You can outman them, but you don’t seem to be able to outgun them.]
__________
*I regret that one. It does sound interesting, although I don’t associate you with “natural rights.” They are not in the Bible.
LikeLike
Stick with crickets, Tom if you can’t get the substance over nominal response.
cheers
(or if you prefer, ciao)
LikeLike
Bob S
Posted January 7, 2014 at 2:20 am | Permalink
Stick with crickets, Tom if you can’t get the substance over nominal response.
cheers
(or if you prefer, ciao)
Perhaps you’re the cricket, Bob. A very angry cricket. Or a Scorpion*, although scorpions aren’t angry atall, really. They just strike out, because it’s their nature.
For I missed the part where you responded to a single word I said. I responded to you. Let’s start over, or let’s get you
____________
Bob S
Posted January 4, 2014 at 12:15 am | Permalink
TVD: Many many posts ago, Stellman or Cross was quoted as saying he found himself unable to defend sola scriptura. That would be judging his {Protestant] faith by HIS own standards, not mine or anyone else’s. That’s really the only way we can fruitfully discuss these things, by the other fellow’s standards.
———One, that neither Bryan or Stellman were able to defend SS does not mean SS is necessarily undefendable. Unless non sequiturs are valid arguments in lala land Romania.
Two, when the other fellow’s standards include Scripture – as they necessarily must if we are going to keep blathering about “By his own words Jesus made a promise to his church , not a bible” which “words” are ahem, found nowhere else, but in the . . .Bible, well connect the dots with a paint tar brush, Michelangelo.
Well, actually that argument won the debate on your terms over on the other thread. Sola scriptura isn’t Biblical. And to the point here, the Catholic argument uses scripture whenever possible. It does not dispute the scriptura part, only the sola.
And when Erik Charter showed up to their blog the other day–to stir up marginally relevant attacks/challenges
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/exposing-the-blind-side-a-reverted-catholic-looks-back/
the contrast of how they treat their guests and their forthcomingness in giving substantive replies
Fr. Bryan O.No Gravatar January 2nd, 2014 9:42 pm :
Erik –
“Church hopping as a result of discipline is by no means a Catholic only problem, I assure you.”
—I never said it was. All I’m saying is that if the Church that God intended to establish is the modern day protestant Church, he wouldn’t have wasted his time establishing a system of discipline because discipline within Protestantism doesn’t mean anything. Discipline can only work if there is a visible Church with a clearly defined group of leaders who have the authority to discipline others.
rather than elide via snark, attempts at cleverness or playing to the gallery…
…the gentle reader of both blogs, of both religions and their religionists, can judge for themselves.
cheers
Cheers to you, tambien. Don’t be a Scorpion, por favor.
Signed,
A Frog*
____________
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
The Scorpion and the Frog is an animal fable about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung during the trip, but the scorpion argues that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog agrees and begins carrying the scorpion, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature. The fable is used to illustrate the position that the natural behaviour of some creatures is inevitable, no matter how they are treated and no matter what the consequences. It is also used to illustrate that a person (frog) is to blame for the trouble they are in if it was caused by associating with another (scorpion) they know to be no good.
LikeLike
Tom, mobs? Obviously, you’re not a sociologist.
LikeLike
For I missed the part where you responded to a single word I said. I responded to you. Let’s start over, or let’s get you
Well, actually that argument won the debate on your terms over on the other thread. Sola scriptura isn’t Biblical. And to the point here, the Catholic argument uses scripture whenever possible. It does not dispute the scriptura part, only the sola.
Thomas, the station done left the train. IOW where have you been in the discussion on Rome vis a vis Scripture, reason and history. It’s been going on since ’09, first at the Green Bilbo and now here.
But if you think CtC is winning then I dunno, I expect that somebody, when they finally get off their high skeptical horse just might take the plunge and go whole hog romanist ala CtC.
(Just think of the fearsome threesome. The Purple beret with a smirk, the ex P&R thug with the smooth shaven skull and Mr. Goofy Gaga Glasses. )
Further I miss the love in Matt. 23 and Gal. 1:8,9 too.
Yeah I know, the scorpion and the frog. So what?
You’re a clever guy, but if I hadn’t already read Aesop, this guy beat you to it in ’06.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/pc-thinking-disaster-this-time-in-iraq
cheers
LikeLike
Conservative Roman Catholic bishop?
LikeLike
One thing you need to know about Joe Carter:
LikeLike