The chief deficiency of Protestantism, according to Jason and the Callers, is that we only have a Bible that needs to be interpreted while they — Roman Catholics — have a pope who is the final word on interpretation. In other words, Protestants have multiple opinions about the Bible’s meaning while Roman Catholics have one truth thanks to its one pope (please don’t notice, by the way, when the church had more than one).
Given this anti-Protestant polemic (the new acceptable prejudice), I had a good chuckle when devout Roman Catholics had to come to the rescue to explain what Francis meant in his recent universalistic sounding homily.
Andrew Preslar did a pretty good impersonation of a Protestant reading his Bible when he wrote:
The key to understanding the Pope’s remarks is to understand that there is a difference between being redeemed–as are all men (objectively), because of Christ’s death and resurrection–and being saved or in a state of grace–as are only those who receive God’s grace by faith and abide in his love. It is also important to notice that the Pope was not teaching that atheists can be saved merely by doing good works. He made two distinct though related points; namely, that atheists can do good works and that Christ has redeemed everyone. For these reasons, we can “meet one another in doing good.” [1] Of course, the Pope’s point about the universality of the Atonement is disputed by Calvinists, and the teaching of Vatican II concerning the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ is widely debated in non-Catholic Christian circles. Without here entering into these debates by way of argument, I want to describe how I think about this matter now, as a Catholic, with special reference to evangelism.
Bryan Cross couldn’t resist getting in on the fun of private interpretation:
Whatever the merits of these explanations of Francis, they flatly contradict the claim that Protestantism suffers from a diversity of opinions. Roman Catholicism does as well. You have the former Protestant line of Francis’ meaning, and then you have the cradle-left-leaning-social-justice Roman Catholic version. Link to NCR comments on homily. Protestants have to interpret the Bible and Roman Catholics (post-Vatican 2) have the freedom to interpret their bishops. Without any temporal power to enforce the right interpretation – whether Geneva’s City Council or the Roman Inquisition, we’re all Protestants now.
If Jason and the Callers had the slightest awareness of history, they would know that they jumped from the frying pan of denominationalism into the fire of Roman Catholic opinion making. But to justify their rational, autonomous decisionism, they continue to think they have chosen the church of Cappadocia circa 389 AD.
Modernity does make its demands.
Old Life 
MTX, as an ordinary member of a Reformed church I affirm what I understand as sola fide and what the RCC anathematizes, just like my elders. Where am I headed?
LikeLike
Can’t answer that one, Zrim.
“judge not lest ye be judged.”
I speak with Paul, Peter, James:”Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God at work in you.” “Always be ready to give and answer for the hope that lies with you.” “Believe and be baptized and you shall be saved.” “With out faith it is impossible to please God” “Faith apart from works is death.”
Christ: “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.”
“Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day..”
“If you do not believe I am He you will die in your sins.”
“For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believes in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. He that believes in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believes not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. For every one that doth evil hates the light, and comes not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth, comes to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.”
Zrim,
I am no man’s judge. God’s word judges us all.
“If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. He that hates me, hates my Father also.”
LikeLike
Zrim,
I have my own plank to deal with, but am happy to talk about the help I am getting with digging it out with the light of Christ. I’ll help sharing what burdens of my fellow pilgrims I can help with. Even if it just being along side you and your suffering.
LikeLike
I am not the Word nor the Light only a unprofitable servants that does that which we ought to do and often do a pretty poor job at that most of the time. I have only ever give to the Lord what he has first given to me and even with that I have many times kept that for myself.
LikeLike
MTX, I appreciate the humility, but I’m not asking you to judge me. I’m asking you to interpret your church’s formulations and clarify your own words, which were: “Anathemas only apply to those who affirm what they know and understand is anathemas. Just because a leader in a ‘Church’ receives an anathema doesn’t mean everybody in that community or even that person is going to hell.”
That sounds like the usual Catholic sentiment, which seems to be that Trent was aimed at Luther and those born in the Catholic Church but not those born to Luther and outside the Catholic Church and so whom, by no fault of their own, embrace bad teaching but suffer no consequences. Which sounds fine, until you think about it for five minutes and then it turns insulting, because some of us really do understand both Luther and Trent and side with Luther. Is your church saying we’re condemned or not? If not, then why speak that way and what incentive do we have to come home?
LikeLike
Zrim,
I know my heart and I am not humble.
Do you believe the Catholic Church is Christ’s authoritative Church and is able to speak with the actual protection of the Holy Spirit in the Council of Trent?
LikeLike
MTX, going to hell is not the same thing as being a schismatic or someone excommunicated by the pope. That’s what Jason and the Callers keep telling me.
LikeLike
MTX, I do not.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’ll let the Church summarize some of her own thoughts to the listening world from the first universal Catholic Catechism in modern times. The Church seems to leave judgement to the person and God as well.
Paragraphs:
1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”47
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
– One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
– the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”56
– charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.”57 Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If – on the contrary – the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61
Zrim, I hope that gives a little better view of the Church’s teaching on this. As I understand it, the Church doesn’t judge anyone either, but teaches what it understands to be true and lets God’s providence in each persons life bring the chips fall where they may.
If you did or come to believe different about the Church having any authority from the God of the conscience there is a whole new ball game going on. “For who much is given much is required.” I am on a “superior top shelf”, as Hart says, not because I wish to be, but because God has revealed more reality for me to react to.
Can you describe what you believe the essence of the Gospel according to the Catholic Church is?
LikeLike
If you wish to read all of it, here is the link to that section of the Catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
LikeLike
I did skip some paragraphs in that section which would be best to read over. But of these, please note paragraph 1790. I didn’t want to take too too big of a section here in a comment. Email me if you wish to talk on it privately.
michaeltx2013 at gmail
LikeLike
Michael, seriatum.
So first, can you explain to me why you lack Christian charity towards me, which is a real sign of our justification?
Huh? Read Prov. Proverbs 27:5&6
Open rebuke is better than secret love.
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
We have faith because the reality is there, not the reality is there because we have faith.
See below on Trent.
Bob, I don’t find your disassembling of Catholic doctrine on the sacraments sufficient to compel my dismissal of my understanding.
That was a joke, right?
There is a lot of Scripture not dealt with there.
Huh? See above on jokes and below on Jn 6.
Is there a good book or article you could recommend that would do just that? I am primarily seeking answers from the reformed view on the canon right now, but I do still desire to know more from differing points of view on other things, too.
Start with the West. Confession and Wm. Whitaker’s Disputations on Holy Scripture where he answers Bellarmine. IOW if you are new to all this, it might behoove you to get up to speed before lecturing us on the true church as you have been so diligent to do previously.
FTM arminian evangelicalism is in principle pretty much the same thing as romanism, which is maybe why you bolted in the first place. Why settle for an imitation when you can have the real thing along with all the sarcedotal trappings.
But your free will is not free to choose the spiritual good: God’s will is sovereign, not man’s contra Rome and Arminius.
“judge not lest ye be judged.”
Or
I am no man’s judge. God’s word judges us all.
Ahem.
“Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day..”
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
According to Jesus, coming and believing is the same as eating and drinking.
IOW so much for justification by mastication versus salvation by believing.
Can you describe what you believe the essence of the Gospel according to the Catholic Church is?
Yep. Justification by faith alone is anathema. So Trent contra Romans and Galatians.
LikeLike
Huh? Read Prov. Proverbs 27:5&6
Open rebuke is better than secret love.
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
So, do you believe my rebuke was as a friend or a kiss of an enemy?
I spoke regarding my concern for your heart. If I am wrong then good.
But I say again, as a friend, I do not feel treated as a real person by you, just a doctrinal bother in a combox.
Regarding faith alone, do the unholy enter heaven?
And is our Christ worked justification with us in heaven?
Til tomorrow,
Mike
LikeLike
MTX, sorry but none of that clarifies how sinners are right with God. The Reformed say it is through faith alone in Christ alone. You say that is anathema. I can only conclude that means I am in peril while you sit upon the top shelf. I appreciate the effort for humility, but it just can’t help coming off as taking with one hand what is given with another.
In contrast, the Reformed confess that the true church is found where sola fide is held (along with two other marks, sacraments and discipline) and that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside her and so true souls are bidden to cleave to her. There is no anathematizing, thus no need to rush around doing damage control on formal judgment of souls.
LikeLike
Zrim,
The Reformed say it is through faith alone in Christ alone. You say that is anathema.
This is why I asked you to describe what you believe is the Gospel according to the Catholic Church, because depending on what you mean by those words that is exactly what the Church doesn’t teach. I do believe it is by faith alone through Christ alone, but it is not a dead faith of intellectual assent but of Holy Spirit reborn life giving power. Which is also often the belief of Reformed guys like yourself. Is this the case?
LikeLike
Zrim,
BTW, my whole interaction with the Sean on the Canon/SolaScriptura Contraction is me still looking to see if there is any other reasonable “shelf” that can be seen. My old theological boat sank out from under me and the only boat I could see was the bark of Peter. I still am looking to see if I was wrong and that boat can be resurrected from the depths by some truth I missed seeing at the time.
Til later,
Mike
LikeLike
MTX, those words mean what they say, plain and simple: sinners are reconciled to God through faith alone in Christ alone apart from any works. Faith is not mere intellectual understanding of a thing but also includes a personal trust.
The Catholic understanding is that it is by a faith that is not alone but a faith that works through love, that is to say a faith that is internally inscribing God’s law and enabling believers to exhibit love of God and neighbor, thereby fulfilling the law in order to gain eternal inheritance. So when you claim Catholic and define justification the way the Reformed do (sola fide), you appear out of step with your own church.
LikeLike
Zrim,
What you describe here is basically the Catholic understanding of justification: “internally inscribing God’s law and enabling believers to exhibit love of God and neighbor”
But not how one receives it, which is by true living faith alone in the Word of God.
I realize you think I step out of my own Church, but that is not true. I have been taught this by well respected and popular priest and Documents of the Church back me up. Check out the Joint Declaration on Justification between Lutherans and The Church. Does it contain every thought on Justification by the Catholic Church? No. But nether does any thing we write contain all the truth God wishes us to know on any topic. John witnesses to that at the end of His Gospel. All the Truth there is contain in Christ and what he has done and said.
LikeLike
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
LikeLike
I am willing to be corrected on my understanding of what I present as the Church of Christ’s teaching by Scripture or the Church which is “the pillar and foundation of Truth”[2 Tim 2:15]
I am no liar. I speak the truth, as I know and understand it, and beg God and His people for correction of any error which I present.
LikeLike
Zrim,
From your thought here: Faith is not mere intellectual understanding of a thing but also includes a personal trust.
What do you believe necessarily follows because of this?
LikeLike
MTX, you may want to consult with Stellman and company, because they know that Reformed and Catholic churches do not teach the same thing concerning justification. They don’t claim on one hand to “… believe it is by faith alone through Christ alone” and on the other agree that it is by “a faith that is internally inscribing God’s law and enabling believers to exhibit love of God and neighbor….” They say it’s not the former but the latter, which is why they reject Reformed churches and embrace the RCC. You seem to want to say both. But you can’t do that, you have to embrace one and reject the other.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I respect your candor, but you didn’t answer my question.
From your thought here: Faith is not mere intellectual understanding of a thing but also includes a personal trust.
What do you believe necessarily follows because of this?
I’m not talking about churches I’m asking you.
LikeLike
Sorry, the last one didn’t format correctly, let’s try again.
Michael,
I see that you’re still busy dealing with all of us here and I’m pretty busy as well so no rush to get back to me.
MTX: I don’t think we need a infallible magisterium to come to the recongition of the infallible one when it comes. All true authority is from God alone. I think this is exactly what the Bereans did. They search what they could know and recognized the authorized messager of Paul and the message of the Apostles of Christ. He was “sent”. Therefore, he could speak as one sent with authority and was recognizable as coming from God and presenting His truth.
DP: Michael, I must confess that I’m not following you here. What you are saying here seems to be exactly what is not allowed in Roman doctrine. You’re saying that the Bereans were right in searching the Scriptures with their own interpretation, apart from the authority of the Magisterium and/or Tradition? Are you also saying that all the OT saints did the same? If this is the case, what changed to make such a thing impossible to the point that the Romanists teach us that this Magisterium and Tradition are needed if we are to know what know what the Scriptures teach? I’m truly lost on your answer, especially in light of how you go about answering my other questions.
MTX: That was kind of why I answered the way I did. It isn’t that clear. I am willing that the canon be the 66 book canon or the 73 book canon. But it is a tradition that will get us to either one, therefore our canon can only be as reliable as our gift of being given it from the proper tradition, the apostolic tradition. This does mean God has given us more in His coming than just His wirtten word. We can by the guiding promises of the Spirit have all that Christ said even if it was not written. We can have all that all the Apostles taught even if it was not written, by the gift and promised protection of the Spirit. Does this make me fearful as a historical “bible only” type of guy. Yes. But God is good and can be trusted even if I don’t like the unknown possibilities.
If we can truly get to a rightful “Sola Scripture” canon without a existing community then we don’t need a “T” tradition, but other wise I see no way around it. The canon testifies to a existing community. Therefore there is a community in which that canon is received and created by the same Spirit who formed it.
DP: This answer also confuses me to a great degree. The Protestant contention is that we can get a canon without the clear testimony of a community because the Holy Spirit testifies to the words that are His. Of course the canon testifies to a community, it does so concerning the OT church as well, and, as Barber documented so well, there was not a consensus on what was and wasn’t Scripture. Yet, the Scriptures did exist at that time, so I’m not seeing the necessity of the community to define it. You seem to dismiss out of hand the possibility of the Holy Spirit testifying about His word apart from a received tradition but I don’t see why you view that as a necessity. To do so would certainly not be beyond the Holy Spirit’s power, so why isn’t that a possibility? Why does it only come down to tradition as far as you are concerned?
It is interesting to me then, in contrast to your previous view, that you have faith that there are teachings of the apostles that the Holy Spirit intends to preserve for us that we don’t have in the Scriptures. Doesn’t such a belief necessitate the inspiration of Tradition or are you completely convinced of this by the testimony of Scripture apart from Tradition? It’s also interesting that such teaching would need to necessarily be preserved at all. We all agree that the apostles were inspired in the writing of the Scriptures but do the Romanists contend that they were also inspired apart from that work? If not, why the need to preserve their uninspired teachings? If so, where does this notion come from since even the Pope is not infallibly inspired all the time according to Roman teaching, and he is himself the chief heir of the apostles? Did the apostles have a greater charism than the Pope? If not, are the errors of Popes when they speak without infallibility preserved in Tradition and, if yes, why?
MTX: It would probably be more in the category of your #3 option from my understanding but not near as definitive as the NT Church. Shadow and reality type of thing. Isreal’s Canon would have been part of the tradition of the nation even if it was or was not definitatively limited by the people. It has more to do with the people of the Nation, rather than a “magisterium.” But, it does seem Christ calls the people he teaches to do what those who sit on the chair of Moses tell the to do, but don’t do what they do. So, he calls them to trust what is clearly taught, but don’t be like the evil brood presenting that teaching. For clarity on much of this I would need to do more searching.
DP: Even though I said this option seemed to me to be the most consistent with Roman theology, I honestly did not expect you to pick it. And in picking it, you seem to take away with one hand what you give with the other. There was the need for a type of authority to define the canon so that the people knew what the Scriptures were but it need not necessarily have been defined? Isn’t that the point of the authority? Again, this is not a problem for the Reformed view if the authority is the witness of the Spirit but it is the Roman position that says the community is necessary in order for it to be defined.
It is interesting that you bring up Christ’s words about those who sit in the chair of Moses as I find it to be rather harmful to the Roman notion of Tradition. Christ also says of those same ones who sit in Moses’ chair that they sin by adding to God’s word their own tradition. Christ never commends to the people this tradition of the scribes and the Pharisees but rather pits it against the word of God they are responsible to teach (Matt 15 & Mark 7). So the question becomes, if the tradition of those who sat in the seat of Moses was against the Scriptures and their God, what prevents this of being true of those who sit in the seat of Peter?
Overall, I’m sorry to say that your answers have really muddied the waters for me on this subject Michael. In the 3rd quote you indicate that some sort of authoritative body was necessary to define the Scriptures but in the 1st quote you say that an infallible authority is not needed to receive the Scriptures but still insist in your 2nd quote that we need some tradition in order to know what the Scriptures are. The best I can make of that is that you think some tradition is needed but that tradition need not be infallible or clear. Is that correct? If so, I’m having trouble seeing how the Protestant canon does not meet these specifications.
LikeLike
Drew,
Glad you got back into my thoughts. I will work through what concerns you and clarify anything I can soon. Still reading it and thinking right now, but like your interactions.
Peace,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
MTX, I’m not sure what your question means. I was merely affirming and expanding a tad on your point that the Reformed definition of faith isn’t merely intellectual.
Now you. Which formulation of justification are you saying you affirm?
LikeLike
Drew,
It really will take a lot of Scripture and thoughts for me to try and clarify those concerns. But, for good measure. Your thought on the Chair of Peter would be right. If a tradition does contradict the Word it is not a “T” tradition, but that is not always easy to discern.
LikeLike
Michael,
Glad to see that we are in agreement that any tradition that contradicts the Scriptures is invalid. That raises a lot of questions for me about traditions taught by Rome but for the purposes of our conversation that is neither here nor there. In any case, I’m looking forward to your responses and being able to interact with you further.
LikeLike
Michael, some of the difficulty we are all having is there appears to be a good portion of your RC faith and even points of emphasis within that communion, that are fairly unique to you. Which is ok to a degree and quite frankly more indicative of Vat II practice, but make it difficult to render an apologetic that is uniquely suited to your issues. In your pursuit of being true to your religious conscience, you’ve got a bit of a hybrid working doctrinally. You’re Trad on certain aspects-authority. You’re prot-catholic on scripture, at least in how you approach it, and you’re completely Vat II on the elevation of religious conscience, which actually tends to be ‘liberal’ in our confessional circles. It’s all ok after a fashion but it makes dialogue challenging and time consuming. So, you may wear a few of us out or have to uber-patient with responses
LikeLike
Zrim,
Sorry, I will put it more clearly. Is the the type of faith(having personal trust) you believe is the biblical type of faith the end or the beginning of ultimate Salvation. Are we created in Christ unto good works, that God planned before hand for us to walk in them? Is this the necessary consequence of this faith in Christ? Is this[inscribing God’s law and enabling believers to exhibit love of God and neighbor] what that Spirit worked “personal trust” ultimately does?
LikeLike
MTX, not to get sloganeer-ish, but as you may already know, the Reformed believe that justification is by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone. We hold that good works are inevitable to salvation, that here are none who are justified who do not also have the law of God inscribed upon them and enabled to what is righteous and resist what is evil by the power of the Spirit.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’m not playing some trick here, but it seems you’re holding requirement up to me you will not take on your self. You have to decide. Are the works part of true Biblical salvation or not?
We hold that good works are inevitable to salvation, that here are none who are justified who do not also have the law of God inscribed upon them and enabled to what is righteous and resist what is evil by the power of the Spirit.
Do the unholy enter heaven or only those enabled to what is righteous and resist what is evil by the power of the Spirit going to be there?
LikeLike
MTX, good works necessarily attend salvation but they do not cause it. The sole instrument of justification is faith alone. If you affirm that then you’re not in step with the RCC.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’m no one special to you, but you still didn’t answer the question.
I am in step with the RCC. The odd thing is I think you are too, but you don’t like to speak from the eternal perspective; which God in the Scriptures and the Church often speaks from. It is this eternal perspective that give the division of Justification and Sanctification by complete grace their wondrous and Biblical beauty.
Do the unholy enter heaven or only those enabled to what is righteous and resist what is evil by the power of the Spirit going to be there?
LikeLike
Michael,
Have you considered that your church is old, large, and muddled and has taken multiple, perhaps conflicting positions on many issues over time? Your catechism has close to 3,000 questions. That’s kind of ridiculous.
Why don’t you just affirm the clarity of Trent on justification?
LikeLike
The least you could do is throw a few “anathemas” at us…
LikeLike
Sean,
Sorry I completely missed your comment @ 11:34 until now.
I am who I am by God’s grace. I read the actual Church documents. I read Benedict XVI and JP II. I read over the encyclicals and the Documents of VII. I read old works and new by Catholic and Protestant authors. I dig CS Lewis, as do many of the Catholics I know. I respect Martin Luther and the reformers to stand with their consciences, but I hate the divisions and wars caused by those times. I don’t blame Non-Catholics for the divisions of Christians and believe official “Catholics” have plenty of blame to share through out time for marks of ugliness on the mystical body. I went through Catholic instruction in two different parishes and was ready and willing to walk away at any time, even the day I was confirmed while standing at the alter before the priest with the Holy Oil in his hand. Saint Francis is my patron saint. It was a really hard choice between him, Athanasius and Augustine. I didn’t pick him because he loved the birds, but because in reading his works I felt the holiness he preached was the type I struggled the most with attaining. I love the Scriptures. It seems to be a thing Catholic saints love, too. I would think most of them would speak and act in ways God’s Spirit shapes and guides me. I am not my own I have been bought with a price and I hope by grace to live that truth. I just by grace know Christ and here is where I am.
Just giving some info guys.
Peace,
Mike
LikeLike
Erik,
I will not throw anathemas at words and beliefs that are used to mean different thing than what the Church condemned at Trent. I will try and understand truly what you mean when you say it and answer questions that I can.
Benedict XVI “Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love.”
I don’t speak against the Church.
LikeLike
Here is the link to that Wednesday Catechises for the Year of St. Paul in 08′.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html
LikeLike
MTX, if I am in step with the RCC then why am I being anathematized?
LikeLike
By the way I am good with Trent. It just takes a bit of listening ears hearing what is actually taught there. Don’t forget Orange was not rejected at Trent and had a public reaffirmation during JP II. The Church at Trent was dealing with large amounts of really fine lines in there and lots of controversy. It can get easily polemic in a hot bed like that.
LikeLike
MTX, ears to hear (and the Holy Spirit) are the appeals the CRC makes to justify ordaining women, something I know the RCC takes as a mark of heterodox. How’s that feel?
LikeLike
Zrim,
You may want to read back over the quote from me you wanted clarification for.
“Anathemas only apply to those who affirm what they know and understand is anathemas. Just because a leader in a ‘Church’ receives an anathema doesn’t mean everybody in that community or even that person is going to hell.”
I would think if you are “in step with the RCC” here then this is not an anathema you would need to be concerned with applying to you. Move on to a new one.
You still didn’t answer.
Good chattin Zrim.
Read the Joint Declaration, bro.
Peace,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
The CRC may, that doesn’t make them have the promises given the Church in Scripture to the Apostles.
JP II said, the Church “has no authority whatsoever” to ordain women in an apostolic letter.
Different spirit different words, right?
LikeLike
MTX, right. But ordaining women isn’t de-authorizing the way anathematizing the gospel St. Paul preached is. It’s just wayward.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Its pretty clear if it is Christ Church why would you thin what you read is not what you find in the Scriptures. At time you may not understand the councils words, but at others you may understand the Scriptures. Sometimes the order is flipped. The Scriptures never change, but the object in councils do and at time is more clear later than at the moment. One Spirit, one Truth presented in different ways at different times dealing with different issues.
LikeLike
MTX, the Spirit may abide, but your last comment is pretty unclear. What are you saying?
LikeLike
Zrim,
St. Paul nor, John nor, James, nor Christ was talking directly to Luther or Calvin or the fine lines dealt with at that time, but the Church was and still does today. Maybe you should read more of the stuff written in our language and time about what was written in that language and time by people faithful to the Church and serving Christ with their heart soul mind and strength, as well as seeking to love their neighbors as themselves.
Just a thought.
LikeLike
Sorry,
I posted it before seeing your post at 2:23 about the difference in Paul’s Gospel and women priest. I thought it fit well anyway though. I do not believe Trent or St. Paul contradict each other. If it did I would be with Paul, but truly searching to understand what the Church said shows them to be the same, though more definitively separated from more subtle errors.
LikeLike
Error which you seem to agree are errors.
LikeLike