Recent discussion of John Paul II’s beatification resurrected parts of the pope’s career that I had completely forgotten, such as his 2000 trip to the place of Jesus’ baptism (Wadi-al-Kharrar). On that trip the pope said, “May Saint John Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan, and all who partecipated in this celebration, a memorable celebration. I’m very grateful to all of you.” This was a year after John Paul II kissed the Qur’an during a visit to Rome by a delegation of Muslim leaders.
For some Roman Catholics like Robert Spencer, Islam and Christianity are fundamentally at odds and Islam is a threat to the United States. Others believe that John Paul II should never have been as friendly to other religions of the world:
I am an Orthodox Catholic (I do not consider myself ultra-conservative) and I cannot get beyond the incident at Assisi where the statue of Buddha was placed on top of the tabernacle (in the very presence of His Holiness), an act which Arch-Bishop Lefebvre called “diabolical.” Nor can I get the picture out of my mind of JPII kissing the Quran. And what about the joint prayer services with the pagans?
And then, of course, there is the condition of the Church under his watch. Need I say more?
Of all the popes- saints before JPII, would any of these things have happened under their watches? Does it preclude his sainthood? Should it? I don’t know the answers. But these are valid questions that cannot summarily be dismissed as “ultra-conservative” as Mr. Weigel attempts to do.
Then again, the reporters who cover the Vatican provide useful insights into what may drive Vatican policy (though it does not appear to be informed by Peter’s warnings about false teachers). This is from an old story about Benedict XVI’s 2009 visit to the Land many call “holy”:
When Benedict XVI lands in Jordan on May 8, it will be his first visit to an Arab nation and his first to a predominantly Muslim country since Turkey in late November/early December 2006. As it turned out, the Turkey trip became a kiss-and-make-up exercise in the wake of the pope’s famous September 2006 speech in Regensburg, Germany, which inflamed sentiment across the Muslim world because of its incendiary citation of a 14th century Byzantine emperor with some nasty things to say about Muhammad, the founder of Islam. The iconic image from Turkey was Benedict XVI standing inside the Blue Mosque, shoulder-to-shoulder with the Grand Mufti of Istanbul, for a moment of silent prayer in the direction of Mecca.
Because the Turkey trip was hijacked by damage control, Jordan offers Benedict his first real opportunity to lay out his vision of Catholic/Muslim relations while on Islamic turf. That vision goes under the heading of “inter-cultural dialogue,” and it boils down to this: Benedict XVI believes the real clash of civilizations in the world today runs not between Islam and the West, but between belief and unbelief. In that struggle, he believes Christians and Muslims should be natural allies. As a result, he has deemphasized the fine points of theological exchange – how Christians and Muslims each understand atonement, for example, or scripture. Instead, his priority is a grand partnership with Muslims in defense of a robust role for religion in public affairs, as well as shared values such as the family and the sanctity of life. (Among other things, that means joint efforts against abortion and gay marriage.)
The price of admission to that partnership, Benedict believes, is for Islam to denounce violence and to accept the legitimacy of religious freedom. In that sense, he sees himself as a friend of Islam, promoting reform from within a shared space of religious and moral commitment. To date, however, he has not found an argot for making that pitch successfully to the Muslim “street.”
All of this, and you can find a lot more about the Vatican’s relations with Muslims, adds up to a relationship between Roman Catholicism and Islam that is decidedly contested, with popes doing damage control and pursuing inter-religious dialogue in ways that would have made liberal Protestants proud, and some laity incredulous that the Vatican could be so indifferent to the claims of church dogma, with others willing to bless the popes in ways that John Paul II wanted John the Baptist to bless Islam.
But one additional item caught my eye while trying to take the pulse of Vatican-Muslim relations. It was a comment on the proper way to conduct inter-religious dialogue:
I am all for dialogue between Muslims and Christians when it is honest and not based on false pretenses. There doesn’t seem to be any use to dialogue that ignores difficulties and points of disagreement rather than confronting them. . . . One thing that must be recognized is that for many Muslim spokesmen and leaders, dialogue with adherents of other religions is simply a proselytizing mechanism designed to convert the “dialogue” partner to Islam, as the Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb explained: “The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers] is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.”
In line with this, 138 Muslim scholars wrote to Pope Benedict XVI, inviting him to dialogue. The title of the document they sent to him was A Common Word Between Us and You. Reading the entire Qur’anic verse from which the phrase “a common word between us and you” was taken makes the Common Word initiative’s agenda clear: “Say: ‘People of the Book! Come now to a word common between us and you, that we serve none but God, and that we associate not aught with Him, and do not some of us take others as Lords, apart from God.’ And if they turn their backs, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims’” (3:64). Since Muslims consider the Christian confession of the divinity of Christ to be an unacceptable association of a partner with God, this verse is saying that the “common word” that Muslims and the People of the Book should agree on is that Christians should discard one of the central tenets of their faith and essentially become Muslims. Not a promising basis for an honest and mutually respectful dialogue of equals.
Which brings us back to Jason and the Callers. What kind of ecumenical dialogue do they encourage when some think it is really a form of proselytizing? And what kind of conversation do they facilitate when the Protestant paradigm is off limits? Rhetorical questions, perhaps. But given the way they call others to communion, one suspects they can’t be all that pleased with the recent popes’ outreach to Islam. (Or maybe they are.)
Old Life 
Christians can certainly love others without literally kissing the anti-Christic backsides of their “holy” books.
Jesus said that we would be reviled for His sake.
But far too many are in love with the world and are not willing to take a real stand for the truth.
__
Jason’s site is wonderful place for those who wish to engage in discussions of how many angels are on the head of a pin.
God help you if you go there and wish to cut through all the crap and get down to brass tacks.
LikeLike
The Callers are all about making apologies for The Audacious One. Whatever he does or says, they’re down with.
There’s a piece on Sayyid Qutb on A13 of the WSJ today.
LikeLike
I love how those guys have to explain and apologize for their Grand Poobah practically every week. Meanwhile our OPC & URC ministers keep plugging away on Word & Sacrament, rarely daring to even attempt the audacious…
LikeLike
Someone e-mail Todd Bordow & Brain Lee and see if they are offering any specials this week for people who view their Pinterest photos or friend them on Facebook.
LikeLike
DGH,
Just as Islam and Roman Catholicism are separate religions based on the very God they claim to worship (Jesus Christ vs. Allah), could the same be said of Protestants and Roman Catholics: namely, those that worship Jesus Christ who once offered up of Himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God and who makes intercession (by Himself) for us (on the one side) vs. Jesus Christ who needs be re-offered, does not completely once and for all satisfy the divine justice of God, or completely reconcile sinners to God, and who is not the only mediator of God’s elect (on the other side)?
I am not sure if that is a legitimate question from your post but it came to mind.
LikeLike
B, your question has certainly been answered in the affirmative when Protestants have regarded Rome as a “false” church.
LikeLike
DGH,
I agree.
When such a concept is indicated in Sunday School or casual conversation, I often wonder how many Protestants actually believe it.
I think the combination of: 1) lack of teaching; and 2) (as you sometimes highlight) the similarities of social/political goals that many Protestants have with RC’s, cause Protestants to be blind toward the unbridgeable gulf between the two religions. The Callers on the other hand do not seem to be blind to the gulf…they just encourage themselves by denying what they see.
LikeLike
“May Saint John Baptist protect Islam…”
You certainly have a valid criticism here, DGH. It’s certainly not normative Catholic theology; one might say John Paul “misspoke.” I don’t think his sharper, scholarly advisor/successor Pope Ratzinger would affirm the sentiment.
There is of course the controversy of whether Muslims worship the One True God. Natural theology would say they can, and one might say that if Jehovah is the One True God, Allah is the same God of Abraham, at least by their theology.
I’d say that a Muslim can love God with his whole heart and mind, just as I think Benjamin Franklin did, although orthodox Christianity certainly gives them both a solid 0 on the doctrine meter.
But “protect” Islam itself? That cannot fly under any definition of Christianity. Even the kindest of theological treatments would have to call it a heresy, as Belloc did.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/heresy4.txt
[I thought I should note my agreement with you at least occasionally.]
LikeLike
Tom,
You argue a very liberal and old lie: that one can claim an arbitrary Jehovah, contrary to the Jehovah of Scripture and also while denying the Son Jesus Christ and claim to be worshipping the Jehovah of Scripture.
The Pharisees claimed to worship the one true God as well and Jesus told them they worshipped their father the Devil. Muslims and others can love their god with their whole heart and mind but it is not the true God of Scripture and leads them to the same place as any other false religion…and its not up.
John 8 – KJV (pay careful attention to vs. 41 & following)
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
LikeLike
B
Posted July 18, 2013 at 8:08 pm | Permalink
Tom,
You argue a very liberal and old lie: that one can claim an arbitrary Jehovah, contrary to the Jehovah of Scripture and also while denying the Son Jesus Christ and claim to be worshipping the Jehovah of Scripture.
The Pharisees claimed to worship the one
Call me a liberal if it makes you feel better. But I’m not going to say Jews don’t worship the One True God. Hyper-Trinitarians go off the mark when they forget Jehovah’s the One True God as well when they start going berserk on the the endless Christ doctrine stuff.
And FTR, I criticize the actual theological liberal bleat, that they’re reducing Christianity to mere “Beatitudism” and works when they incarnate Mighty Jehovah as Barney the Christosaur and reduce Christianity to the Sermon on the Mount.
So yo, dudes, let’s hold on here and get the story straight. Trinity is complicated, and we have to start with Jehovah. [And Elohim and Yahweh, but let’s leave that bag of bananas unmolested for the moment.]
The Pharisees claimed to worship the one true God as well and Jesus told them they worshipped their father the Devil. Muslims and others can love their god with their whole heart and mind but it is not the true God of Scripture and leads them to the same place as any other false religion…and its not up.
Well, I’m not disagreeing with the last bit necessarily, which is why I drew an explicit distinction between Islam and Muslims. Your own Reformed theology seems to allow that there are OK Catholics even if their church is bogus [if not anti-Christ]. So that’s where I was going with this, a similar distinction. Perhaps Fatima al-Muslim loves God with her whole heart and The One God Allah is all that’s on offer. She’s kept ignorant of the outside world, knows only what she’s been told of Islam, but there’s this spark, this light, this all-good, and she loves Him with all her heart.
What do we know, brother? Shall we judge her? She seems a lot more Elect than a lot of people I’ve met who think they are.
LikeLike
Dear Darryl,
I do not follow your transition from describing Catholic-Islamic relations of very recent times, to your comment that it “brings us back to Jason and the Callers.” What do those relations have to do with the Called to Communion group?
Perhaps your questions were only rhetorical, but as rhetorical devices, they left me confused as to what you intended to communicate. For example, you said, “And what kind of conversation do they facilitate when the Protestant paradigm is off limits?” Of course, we cannot have a conversation with our separated brethren if our old-life paradigm is off limits. So it’s certainly not off limits. It’s just not presupposed to be correct.
And I’m curious, why do you suspect that we aren’t “all that pleased” with recent Vatican outreach to Islam? With the sensitivity of the relationship, it would be far too easy to fall into the temptation to Monday Morning Quarterbacking things, as if we can quickly grasp all the subtleties at play. I trust that the men involved put far more thought and prayer into things than I’ve sacrificed for the sake of Christian-Islamic relations.
Peace,
Tom B.
LikeLike
Tom,
You go where most go…who are we to judge? I agree…we are nothing…that is why we can only judge where God has judged in His Word.
1 John 2
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
1 John 5
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
LikeLike
Mr. Brown,
As I read the post compared the false Islamic ecumenical outreach to Rome to be pretty much on par with Called to Confusion’s outreach to prots. In each case a fundamental truth of the particular communion had to be denied in order that true “ecumenicism” – iow proselytism – could take place. With Islam, the deity of Christ had to be denied by Rome, With the CTC something like sola scriptura for prots.
But miracle of miracles, infallible popes have been found to be complicit with and approving such ecumenical Islamic duplicity which lead DGH to ask what gives?
Indeed.
cheers,
LikeLike
Thomas, Father Z. objects to the way that Muslims conduct inter-religious dialogue. He thinks Muslims won’t allow an open conversation. Bryan doesn’t allow an open conversation. If you don’t follow logic or his paradigm, you’re points are invalid. Sounds Islamic to me.
As for being pleased with Vatican responses to Islam, perhaps you’ve heard the first pope, Peter, in his second epistle, warning about false teachers. If someone had come along and denied the deity of Christ, do you think Peter would have blessed him or kissed his writings?
LikeLike
Rome has so watered down its doctrine of connection to the church being necessary for salvation and has imbibed so much relativism that basically one can be a member of the church as long as one evidences some kind of good will to other people. The church is still the only way to salvation, but you can be a member of it and participate by extension in its grace without even knowing it. Which raises several questions:
1. Why missions at all, at least evangelistic ones? Just go build some wells and be done with it. That tribe of good will was doing just fine before you got there.
2. Why excommunicate Luther? He was a man of goodwill just trying to fix what he thought were a few cracks in the system. Maybe he was misguided, but his motivations were pure, or at least pure enough.
3. Is it not the height of arrogance to insist on the existence of anonymous Christians? Also, think of the imam who knows Islam and might treat Christians kindly even while holding that the deity of Christ is blasphemy. Is it not insulting and condescending to insist that he is really a Christian at heart?
Does any one else ever get the impression from Rome that it’s easier to experience the fullness of grace and get to heaven as Muslim who denies the Trinity than it is for Protestants who affirm the Trinity?
LikeLike
Robert, the simple answer is that Rome has changed. I’ll grant them this caveat, they are entering into at least their 3rd sea change since Vat II, you could readily argue there were at least 2 major shifts that preceded Vat II, but just sticking with post Vat II you had an immediate 60’s type revolution of openness that dominated up to JPII, then with JPII you have a slowing in radicalism while still imbibing a massive deviation from pre-Vat II developments and as you entered the mid-90’s and finally culminating with Ratzinger being elected as pope you had an attempt to put the brakes on the direction of even JPII’s course and that has effectively ended now with Francis. Francis is left of even JPII theologically but right of someone like Kung. He’s a halfway measure between the ‘liberalness’ of Kung and the ‘Fascism'(politically, theologically Ratzinger would be a liberal in our world) of Ratzinger. Vat II ‘liberalism’ will eventually relegate CtC conservatives or SPXers to a vocal minority because they aren’t representative of the vast majority of RC’s and as such they can’t generate the money or influence to get things going there way. You have to look at Rome as a political animal as much if not more than a religious institution, I think that political reality is what keeps throwing non-RC’s off when they look at Rome’s public actions. Rome has much of the political intrigue of a modern nation-state.
LikeLike
Thomas Brown,
Can you explain why on your website, it is called a “conversion experience” when one joins the Roman Catholic Church. Is Roman Catholicism a different religion than the Christianity to which people belong, who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church? Calling this change in membership a “conversion experience” seems to indicate to me that you and your fellow members at Called to Communion believe yourselves to be in a different religion than Christianity. I don’t know of any other church that speaks like that, maybe the Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses do. Only answer if you feel like it.
Later.
LikeLike
“Jeremy Tate – Jeremy is a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary in Washington D.C (M.A.R). He first experienced a conversion to the Christian faith through the ministry of Young Life as a senior in high school…While in seminary he gradually came to believe that this Church can only be found in its fullness in the Catholic Church. ”
“Tim Troutman – Tim was raised in the PCA from childhood and entered the Catholic Church in 2006. In the years preceeding his conversion, he experienced a growing discontent with Reformed answers to central questions like Church authority, sacramentology, and above all, the canon of Scripture.”
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/about/authors/
How come one can convert to the christian faith (finding fullness in the Catholic church), while another converts to Roman Catholicism from reformed Christiantiy?
Thomas Brown,
As Editor and Chief of Called to Communion, I believe you are most responsible for any error on that website. The idea of conversion is pervasive on your website. You have an entire section devoted to it.
The Conversion of Annie Witz
Dialogue on Conversion
How the Church Won: An Interview with Jason Stellman
Jason Stellman Tells His Conversion Story
Jason & Cindy Stewart Recount Their Conversion
Jeremy Tate’s Conversion
John Kincaid’s Conversion
Jonathan Deane’s Conversion
A Presuppositional Apologist Becomes Catholic
Stephen Beck’s Conversion Story
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/index/
I would appreciate if you answer for these things, since you are curious about DG’s equating your website’s ways of prosyltyzing protestant christians with Islam’s ways with Christians that he spoke of in his post. DG’s blog seemed quite clear to me.
Later.
LikeLike
Re: Sean’s comment on change:
Watched a “Mad Men” episode yesterday in which Peggy’s family goes to a Pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. I couldn’t help but notice the difference between that and this Halloween Mass, complete with costumes. When Rome has to copy all that is lame in evangelicalism she has truly jumped the shark.
LikeLike
AB,
Yes, Roman Catholicism is a different religion than the Christianity of Scripture and the Christianity of many who do not belong to Rome. We should be glad that they call it a “conversion experience” when leaving the truth to go over to a lie.
LikeLike
I’d be interested to hear Tom B’s response to my question. From my experience, becoming a Presbyterian after being raised by my parents in a Baptist church, I never once thought I “convertered to Presbyterianism.” Rather, I felt the church I had been raised in was found wanting, when I compared the doctrinal teaching to my own private study of Scripture. It seems to me the callers might be right for all the wrong reasons, as regards to my question about calling the joining of their church a “conversion experience.” Later.
LikeLike
AB and B, it seems to me the c-word is being used rather loosely. It simply means to have made a theological mega-shift.
However, if we want to use it more strictly, then AB’s last remark is interesting, because it suggests that to go from Radical Reformation to Protestant Reformation isn’t so mega, it’s all Reformation. That’s not how our Protestant forebears saw it. They spoke of a battle on two fronts, Roman and Anabaptist. My point is that if we want to take B’s cue and talk about another religion with regard to Catholicism, fine, but what gives with not doing the same with broad evangelicalism, which is arguably Anabaptism warmed over?
LikeLike
Erik, it was alarming to even me as I sat there in class realizing we were taking our lead from protestant German liberalism. Rome jumped the shark a long time ago.
LikeLike
“But I’m not going to say Jews don’t worship the One True God. Hyper-Trinitarians go off the mark when they forget Jehovah’s the One True God as well when they start going berserk on the the endless Christ doctrine stuff.”
The best description I’ve heard of Judaism post-Temple is that it is centered around the doctrine that Jesus is NOT the Messiah. The Hebrews of the Old Testament–their religious life revolved around the sacrificial system and the Temple. How many ultra Orthodox Jews do you know sacrificing bulls, goats, sheep, or doves? (Let’s ignore the “conservative” and “reformed” jewish–one of the latter I know described Judaism as “being against the Man”)
No Temple, no Jewish religion.
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 1 John 4
Judaism = spirit of the antichrist Islam = spirit of the antichrist
At least Rome (or used to; some of its pastors and laypeople still do) firmly teaches the Trinity and two natures of Christ. This is why Lutherans accept their baptism and can say they are Christians, albeit in grave error, perhaps in danger of hellfire when they depend on their actions and intentions to save themselves (despite the protestations–hehe–from Prot-to-Rome converts, many, many do). Maybe that will change in 50-100 years and we’ll have to lump them with the Mormons and JWs and Jesus Only Pentecostals.
Tom, the bare minimum of being a Christians is accepting the Nicene Creed, which I guess is “hyper-Trinitarian.” While trying to understand and defend the “other” in every conversation, you succeed in rejecting everyone! All Christians, all Judaism, all Islam!
LikeLike
Don’t get me wrong, Zrim. I don’t for one second believe my change to Presbyterianism to not be drastic and something that goes to who I am, deep down. Finding Reformed Christianity was a really big deal as a freshman in college. So moving away from the word analysis of “conversion,” my simple point is that not once ever was my shift, by Presbyterians I was finding, nor Baptists I was leaving, spoke of as a “conversion.” I recall vividly the reaction of people I respected, on both sides, once people were realizing I was making s change. It seems a called to communion phenomenon whereby they speak of their change as a theological mega-shift. I’ve not met any other Catholics who speak of people joining their church in this way. So I have concerns about the theology of the callers, and yes, of the Anabaptist tradition that I gave up. The real fight to me, seems to be liberalism, German liberalism, whatever we want to call it. That’s what Katy is saying here too, we share the Trinity and Cyrilline Christology with devout Catholics, I THINK. But I don’t know what I share with PCUSA, or even PCA, to some degree, because even they took another 40 years after the events of the 20’s and 30’s to come around. I have no idea the official position on the Trinity at the PCUSA, and I am less concerned about the PCA, since they share NAPARC with us OPCers. I appreciate Darryl’s blogging about the PCUSA because their the ones we most recently broke away from. I figure it’s them first, then the Roman Catholics, but yes, Anabaptists need Darryl’s attention too. We can’t lump broad evanjellyfish together so easy, with the point I am trying to make, because that term encompasses too many individual groups.I would call them all congregationalists, or new lifers, I guess. B’s point stands if I was being taught from Scripture the Gospel, even if in a deficient form, from my Anabaptist roots. This is just rambling, but Anabaptists and Presbyterians are on the reformation side of the Western Schism, where Sola Scruptura is mentioned. Sola Eclessia on the Romish side means that anyone on our side doesn’t really know what Scripture is saying, because either it’s too complicated or we are too dense. That’s all I see with this, and anyone who picks up a Bible and actually reads it should affirm WCF 1.7 without a heartbeat. Interested readers here might start with the Gospel of John, and read in one sitting. The point Herr though, is why do the callers call their individual theological change a conversion out of one side of their mouth, and say they appreciate their reformed teaching from their past out of the other. I say it’s misleading, and the longer Tom B stays silent here, the more convinced we become that they are practicing some kind of deception at CtoC. They seem to smart to be doing this unknowingly..
LikeLike
I think that there have been buddha statues and islamic minaret models at some post Vatican II masses.
LikeLike
The best sources for understanding post-temple Judaism are “Entourage” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm” (R-rated language):
LikeLike
Larry whistles Wagner:
LikeLike
Larry finds out that his lawyer isn’t really Jewish:
LikeLike
Erik,
Larry “honoring” Steve Martin
LikeLike
AB, it’s not really a question of smarts. They’ve become thomists, and then they drop their thomism on prots and they come off as edumacated because they’re engaging in a bait and switch of which the prot is unaware. They do the same thing when they tell you you can keep all the best parts of covenant theology but just add to it. Well, when you get in the door you learn total depravity is gone, limited atonement is gone, unconditional election is gone, irresistible grace is gone, perseverance of the saints is gone, imputation of righteousness is gone, adherence to original apostolic tradition is gone, Pauline 1st adam 2nd adam coherence is gone. And then you get to add, purgatory, mediation of dead ‘saints’, veneration/worship of Mary, veneration/worship of the eucharist, transubstantiation, divination, honoring of relics, priest-laity class system, ongoing justification(ontological and forensic-they’re the same in this form) via the infusion of grace per participation in the sacraments, so a mediated relationship, even in it’s sacramental form via the eucharist, through the priest. An alternatively aggressive or conservative higher-critical method for investigating the sacred text as interpreted through the ‘deposit’. Either way, warmed over protestant liberalism. Pastorally and theologically, you’re back on the ladder climbing your way to heaven. When they tell you it’s not works-righteousness, they’re selling you ontological renovation via the sacraments made possible by Jesus and the gift of the spirit, but make no mistake, you’ve got renovation to get done in co-operation with the spirit, grace, sacerdotalism, all the way down to last rites and then purgatory to get the temporal effects of sin purged. This is why they beg off the exegetical examination with question begging flags, not because they can’t make their system at least sound coherent, but because you couldn’t pull this from scripture if you’re life depended on it. But then that’s a paradigmatic issue and you’re at fault for not willing to engage them in their own paradigm. Well, no shiite, I reject your paradigm per the sacred text. You’re not going to win the thomistic debate with them because you don’t know thomism(that’s not your fault btw, and just so you know there is scholarly thomists who disagree with their thomism and it’s implications for interpretation of sacred text and Vat II among other documents). Where this gets interesting is the historical ground and the ‘faith claims’ that get engaged at ground zero. Here’s their (CtC) principled distinction at ground zero; “wouldn’t have made sense that God would’ve left us a sole visible church by which to know the truth”. I got a long arse list of things that would’ve made sense to me to, and maybe wish God would’ve thought to counsel me beforehand. Moving on, Vat II really starts to mess with all their ‘principled’ distinctions, which is one of the places where Darryl likes to ding em and since RC piety is as much, actually more, a ‘cultural’ indoctrination, which they even admit, do any one of them, individually, have 10 years vested? Maybe one does, I know a prominent one who I think has a year in, at this point. But they’re the go to internet experts on all things RC? Please.
LikeLike
“Curb” is maybe the smartest comedy series ever. Way better than “Seinfeld”.
LikeLike
Sean, thanks. That makes me think of what the Christian geologists in my family speak of, “theological drift,” which always makes me think of continental drift, which occurs in churches without standards. For example, theological drift is how I explain the PCUSA as they unmoored from the confession. The pastor down the street, leaving the PCUSA for the ECO even used that term, “theological drift,” in his letter posted online to explain their disappointment with PCUSA movement in recent years. I see the same at play at RCism, with Sola Scriptura as what righted the ship. I don’t mind someone telling me my OPC has issues, because I know it does. The CroC response is that the church is developing. My point is, theolgoical drift will occur anywhere Scriptural standards are not upheld by faithful men. In other words, no one has a lock on these things. But that doesn’t mean we stop fighting for truth. Again, sorry for the ramble, I appreciate the response. I still can’t understand why they come and post over here. I’m conviced every move is a proselytize gesture. All we can do is return the favor and try to convert them. Tom Brown won’t post again here, not on this thread anyway. 100 bucks…
LikeLike
AB, when you write that “Anabaptists and Presbyterians are on the reformation side of the Western Schism,” I am not sure my point is landing all the way, which is that it’s not that there is Catholicism and then there’s everybody else. Rather that here are two sects on either side of Protestantism and the Reformation is not over in either regard. IOW, Anabaptism and its variations in evangelicalism has nothing to do with the reformation side of anything.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s not that CYE is better than Seinfeld, rather that CYE is the darker version of Seinfeld. That’s what David says anyway. Horses mouth and all that.
LikeLike
Sean, you mean it might make sense to think about Rome and the Vatican in ways we think about the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate? If you read Bernard Lewis, the parallels are striking.
LikeLike
Good corrective, Zrim, it’s not just Catholics and everyone else. Thanks for that.
LikeLike
Erik and Zrim,
Don’t forget about Larry Sanders or the original BBC The Office. For me, Larry crossed too many boundaries in Season 8. I didn’t even finish. I think one criterion for a series is whether it becomes embarrassing to watch with your spouse — a wife, that is, who loved The Wire (and is not a Walton’s audience member). Sorry, but I think Larry finally succumbed to thinking how humorously offensive he could be rather than just being funny about all the little oddities of daily life.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’ll have to read Lewis but yes from what I know that would track much better than trying to reconcile RC with a protestant assembly or synod.
LikeLike
Darryl, the wife rule could work, but I believe that rules out Breaking Bad for you (but not for me, nor either version of The Office). Mine is too midwestern for Shandling’s Phillip Roth-ery anyway. And a recent viewing of “Before Midnight” brought back uneasy memories of taking her to see “My Own Private Idaho.”
LikeLike
D.G.,
I need to see those two series in order to compare.
Think about what you are saying when you accuse a series of going south in season 8. That’s means you’ve enjoyed 7 previous seasons. This is like saying Raquel Welch has really gone downhill since she hit 70.
Season 8 did have the Palestinian chicken restaurant and Ricky Gervais. Speculating whether or not the little boy was gay went too far. Michael J. Fox and Parkinson’s may have gone too far (although he was a participant). If you want to talk about going too far, though, you have to go J.B. Smoove who entered the show in season 6.
LikeLike
“Before Midnight” compared to “My Own Private Idaho”? I have to see this. Based on “Before Sunrise” and “Before Sunset” I can’t see it.
My claim to fame is being told by three people one summer a few years ago that I look like Ethan Hawke. A lot of good it did me, though.
It’s becoming opposite in my house. My wife’s watching “Orange is the New Black” and it sounds like it would make me skittish.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Re. Curb vs. Seinfeld
It also helps that as I’ve aged I’ve become Reformed and more cynical. David is not for the earnest and un-cynical.
LikeLike
Katy
Posted July 19, 2013 at 10:45 am | Permalink
“But I’m not going to say Jews don’t worship the One True God. Hyper-Trinitarians go off the mark when they forget Jehovah’s the One True God as well when they start going berserk on the the endless Christ doctrine stuff.”
The best description I’ve heard of Judaism post-Temple is that it is centered around the doctrine that Jesus is NOT the Messiah. The Hebrews of the Old Testament–their religious life revolved around the sacrificial system and the Temple. How many ultra Orthodox Jews do you know sacrificing bulls, goats, sheep, or doves? (Let’s ignore the “conservative” and “reformed” jewish–one of the latter I know described Judaism as “being against the Man”)
No Temple, no Jewish religion.
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 1 John 4
Judaism = spirit of the antichrist Islam = spirit of the antichrist
At least Rome (or used to; some of its pastors and laypeople still do) firmly teaches the Trinity and two natures of Christ. This is why Lutherans accept their baptism and can say they are Christians, albeit in grave error, perhaps in danger of hellfire when they depend on their actions and intentions to save themselves (despite the protestations–hehe–from Prot-to-Rome converts, many, many do). Maybe that will change in 50-100 years and we’ll have to lump them with the Mormons and JWs and Jesus Only Pentecostals.
Tom, the bare minimum of being a Christians is accepting the Nicene Creed, which I guess is “hyper-Trinitarian.” While trying to understand and defend the “other” in every conversation, you succeed in rejecting everyone! All Christians, all Judaism, all Islam!
So I’m told. However, since Jesus is also Jehovah, if someone loves God with all their heart and mind, if He can elect you, perhaps he’ll spare her too. As for the theology of the thing, all I can say is I’m glad my salvation is up to God and not my fellow man. Too many people seem too anxious to see other people in hell.
LikeLike
And thanks to you too, Erik. CYE is next in the queue for me and my wife, once we finish season 4 of arrested development. CYE was available at my library down the street? My CA tax dollars, hard at work. I have to watch them now, just to recoup. Thanks again. Have a good weekend, dudes.
LikeLike
Erik, David Edelstein gave “Orange” the same raving review he did for “Arrested Development 5.” Since I thought the latter was a let down, I’m not sure about “Orange” now.
But aged Reformed should be more skeptical than cynical, don’t you think (since cynicism is the flip side of optimism)?
LikeLike
Erik, Larry teetered in the previous seasons. Lots of cringe, especially dating the “cripples.” But in 8 he crossed the line. That moves CYE back behind Phil Hendrie (whenever), Larry Sanders, and The Office (original).
LikeLike
Tom,
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are indeed one God. The one God exists in three persons.
When I confess Jehovah, I am confessing the One God in three persons. I am confessing Christ.
However, when those in the religion of Islam or Judaism claim god the father, they are explicitly denying Jesus Christ. Because Jesus Christ is inseparable from the God the Father of Scripture, to deny Christ is to deny the Father. John 8 is again very helpful in this context.
If someone truly loves God the Father, then they will love and confess Christ. The two are inseparable. All religions that deny the Son are by definition not confessing the triune God of Scripture when they claim to confess the father. They are confessing their father the Devil.
I cannot speak for everyone who reads this blog, but those I know and Reformed Christians I know have no desire for any to go to Hell but rather the opposite that all would go to Heaven. That desire however, does not allow us to deny the truth of Scripture that those who deny the Son, Jesus Christ, do not have eternal life and will go to Hell unless the Holy Spirit opens their eyes and minds to a saving knowledge of the Jesus Christ of Scripture.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I did have a hard with this stuff at the time and still do.
When I was Protestant I was familiar with Cardinal Ratzinger (I had a copy of his Intorduction to Christianity) and was impressed with him. A few years before he bacame Pope I said to my wife, If Ratzinger is ever elected Pope I will take that as a sign we need to convert.
As for those things that JPII did that you and I are in agreement on – they certainly made my journey back much longer. I make no excuses for them other than to recall what a dynamic public figure he was and I believe in his genuine effort to show (humanly speaking) brotherly love it was meant to be as a witness of Christian charity.
Even after enterning the Church I did not get my friends love affair with JPII – Benedict? Yeah, that makes sense. But JPII puzzled me. Of course I am much more familiar now with his entire pontificate and am blown away by his encyclicals and theology of the body. But I try not to let that lead to excusing the things that once scandalized me.
So there it is. But it is also true that a thousand bad decision does not even begin to invalidate Christ’s Church.
LikeLike
Zrim – But aged Reformed should be more skeptical than cynical, don’t you think (since cynicism is the flip side of optimism)?
Erik – I’m optimistic about Jesus, mildly cynical about everything else.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Maybe a better term is “wry”.
1.Using or expressing dry, esp. mocking, humor.
2.(of a person’s face or features) Twisted into an expression of disgust, disappointment, or annoyance.
Synonyms
crooked – awry – oblique
This is why I’m such a Steely Dan fan. Like Fagen & Becker I expect things to go wrong and they usually do. This is why I am an Old Lifer and not a Neocalvinist. I expect the world to be perpetually messed up, it is, and I can press on looking for a better world to come in the eschaton. As Chinua Achebe so eloquently put it, “Things Fall Apart” .
LikeLike
Dave H. – A few years before he became Pope I said to my wife, If Ratzinger is ever elected Pope I will take that as a sign we need to convert.
Erik – Damned Pentecostal Roman Catholics…
LikeLike
If D.G. Hart is named Pope I’m still not converting. If his cats are made bishops I may consider at least moving to the Anglican Communion, however.
LikeLike
B
Posted July 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
Tom,
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are indeed one God. The one God exists in three persons.
When I confess Jehovah, I am confessing the One God in three persons. I am confessing Christ.
However, when those in the religion of Islam or Judaism claim god the father, they are explicitly denying Jesus Christ. Because Jesus Christ is inseparable from the God the Father of Scripture, to deny Christ is to deny the Father. John 8 is again very helpful in this context.
If someone truly loves God the Father, then they will love and confess Christ. The two are inseparable. All religions that deny the Son are by definition not confessing the triune God of Scripture when they claim to confess the father. They are confessing their father the Devil.
OK. Thanks. I got it the first time. However, the One True God is also indivisible, and to love Jehovah is to love God. Hyper-Trinitarians speak of the Trinity as some sort of club, where you have to love all its members. But that’s not how the Trinity works. To say that a Muslim cannot love God assumes too much.
who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.
How do you know that doesn’t happen at the moment of our deaths, like the Dalai Lama told Bill Murray? Your interpretation of the Bible isn’t any better than anyone else’s.
You’re not the Pope. ;-P
LikeLike
I thought the British Office lasted just long enough.
My husband and I are watching Veep and my Washington associates (high school friends who went to Patrick Henry and now work for politicians in DC) say its pretty accurate. The episode that aired the week the Benghazi scandal resurfaced was serendipitous. I haven’t laughed so hard at a comedy series since Party Down. Just hearing SCOTUS and POTUS outside the show makes me giggle.
LikeLike
David H,
Well said. Not desiring anyone in Hell means instructing him in all things. So if a person has mistaken opinions about the Trinity or Christ’s natures (which I believe most evangelicals do), you educate them, and pray they, or rather the Holy Spirit, correct their error.
I disagree on the nature (and perhaps purpose) of Election with probably most people on this blog, but I know they aren’t wishing anyone in hell.
LikeLike
Oops, I meant B well said. David, I also admire Ratzinger the theologian and pastor of St. John Lateran, but still hold the spiritual office he claimed as an antichrist. Sincere question: did you come to your conclusion about your church after you converted, since you said you waited until Ratzinger was elected? If you believed the roman church was Christ’s church, why did it matter who was Pope? What is your understanding now of the office of the holy ministry?
I’m getting better at Erik’s serial posts
LikeLike
Tom,
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” – John 14.6
“because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” – Romans 10.9
Jesus & Paul were not into pluralism or universalism.
LikeLike
(Erik looking up “Party Down” on Netflix)
Another really smart comedy is “Episodes”. It’s a bit raw, however, so be warned.
LikeLike
Katy,
Even with the disagreements on election you are still the embodiment of Anna Schwartz & Emmanuelle Chriqui in one woman.
LikeLike
There has only been one other woman to rival Katy during my sojourn here and I can’t remember her name. She blogged on books. Who was that?
LikeLike
Yeah, we skipped a few episodes, for obvious reasons.. Veep, although has a lot of language, isn’t as bad.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 19, 2013 at 5:31 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” – John 14.6
“because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” – Romans 10.9
Jesus & Paul were not into pluralism or universalism.
I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.
Chill, people, judge nothing before the appointed time. You don’t know how His Will will play out. The moment of our death takes millions and billions of years. A lot can happen in that time, eh?
LikeLike
Erik, there was a woman named Byrd or Bird I believe. In addition, Zrim claims to be wormy. TVD whines like my sisters. MM is sensitive like one, and finally Bryan shows up and schoolmarms on occasion. Now Katy has arrived to tend to the wounded and deliver Lutheran medicine. The female persuasion seems to be well represented.
LikeLike
(Erik and Sean, Aimee Byrd. But there has also been Cath-the-Presbyterian-linguist and Lily-the-Lutheran. And, Sean, that’s Mr. Worm Boy Metrosexual to you.)
LikeLike
How do you know that doesn’t happen at the moment of our deaths, like the Dalai Lama told Bill Murray? Your interpretation of the Bible isn’t any better than anyone else’s.
You’re not the Pope. ;-P
How do you know the Dalai Lama isn’t the pope, Bill isn’t the DL and you aren’t Bill?
Answer: Duh.
Do not pass go, but proceed directly to the CtC.
Your cover has been blown and Bryan will have to rustle ups some more anonymous clone drones to come over and buzz us.
LikeLike
And get rid of that stupid avatar. It is a true hate crime if there ever was one.
LikeLike
Sorry about that Zrim(yeesh). I had to shorthand it, the anti-aging clinic called in for emergency T donations and my blood profile puts me in the Wolverine range, they said that should settle down by the end of the 2nd year of marriage and by the third year or the first child and/or minivan, I’ll be needing supplementation.
LikeLike
We should encourage a certain Rachel to check in now and again. I think Erik creeps out the females though. His old avatar is holding out for LaFawnduh.
LikeLike
Aimee Bird, that’s it.
I was at my 25-year-reunion bar get together tonight. Tomorrow night is at the country club. Had a nice time and some good conversations. Wife was bored silly.
We may have a proposed Old Life get together to be announced soon. Keep your calendar open for early November, that’s all I can say. We would have a good time.
I’ll leave you with the graffiti I read in the bar restroom tonight:
“I rarely **** at bars, but when I do, I prefer the bathroom at Whiskey River. Stay thirsty my friend.”
LikeLike
Chortles,
My leering would be more credible if I actually knew what the fair Katy looked like. All I really know is that she has a beautiful soul.
LikeLike
Erik,
I am down with an OL get-together. Make it in So Cal, A) so I don’t have to cough up a plane ticket, and b) so we can be close to Escondido, the 2k holy city… Stone Brewery is basically a grown up Disneyland. Just sayin.
LikeLike
“OL get-together” aka “Nerd Prom”.
LikeLike
Escondido could work. I could drive out and kidna…errr….pick up Todd on the way out. I’m sure his family could use a breather from all the Wilsonite patriarchalistic abus…errr…growing in holiness. MM could double up on his bibs, grab a case of udder cream and start out now. Don’t worry MM I’ll send you some ‘gels’, you’ll be good. Zremlen, start asking permission now so you can get lined out on all you need to do before November and call Doug and see if he’s got room or whether it’s all been converted to a shoe closet. Jed, I’ll send you my rider so there’s no questions/blood on the walls over what you were supposed to do and what you actually got done. Erik, you and Darryl can meet up and travel on Darryl’s $1000/day per diem the University of Dallas is paying him for all his RC history work. I’ll set up a get together with Fr. Pachence at USD so we can all have a good laugh at the Caller’s expense. Chortles and Kent I’m not sure how this works for y’all, but y’all seem to be able to make it do what it do. TVD, well, maybe you could brave the ‘5’ and visit with Erik. JY needs to shake free from his busy schedule in Savannah, pick up an Old BM, and come on out. Katy, this group may be mildly appropriate on the blog, when Muddy isn’t pushing it beyond the pale, but you might want to bring mace or a gun(California is real Nancy about that though) if your just a glutton for nerds and turds. McMark, are you allowed to make use electricity or fossil fuels? I keed the McMark. sdb, AB, there’s some decent golf weather out west. Robert, Bob S, B, et al. come and claim a bar stool. If I left anyone out it wasn’t on purpose or it was, but likely just my NPD is back from break or Darryl reminded me it’s all about him and who am I.
LikeLike
My only stipulation of nerd prom is that I get to bring my laptop. You all can talk to me, live. I will respond with a combox post or e-mail statement. Somehow, that just feels more real 🙂
LikeLike
I’m thinking the Stone Brewery is way better than Disneyland.
LikeLike
Wait, I just read Sean’s post. Nevermind the laptop. If there’s golf involved, it’s just me with my clubs, which are permanently stationed in the trunk of my car. Sean, you know us all too well. Kudos.
LikeLike
I live in the belly of the Escondido beast, but if Doug S. is coming, I’ll pass.
LikeLike
That was cold and entirely uncalled for, Bruce.
Where’s your manners?
Oh right, it’s the innernet.
Hmmm.
Maybe getting together in person wouldn’t be such a good idea.
Even IF Bryan and JJ made it.
The faux ecumenical joie de vrie would really get creepy.
LikeLike
Bob S. – That was cold and entirely uncalled for, Bruce.
Bruce S. – At least you can read and exegete what I said.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’m in – as long as we lunch at Alberto’s for burritos
LikeLike
Jed,
Alas this get together will be in less hospitable surroundings. I would be up for a SoCal get together sometime in the future, however. I’ve never been there.
LikeLike
The locale will be more akin to Sean’s native Cleveland.
LikeLike
We’re arranging a Bahnsen Seminar in Fargo & a Unitarian Universalist Seminar in Fairfield, Iowa (home of Maharishi University) for the same weekend so Doug & Tom won’t be able to make the Old Life Big Social,
The Pella, Iowa baseball team ran into Jim Carrey last week at a Fairfield Burger King. He was in town to visit the University.
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/07/17/pella-baseball-team-caps-season-with-jim-carrey-at-fairfield-burger-king/article
LikeLike
In other news, I spent four hours and $124 at the local library sale today. Among the books I picked up were “The Gospel of Luke” by none other than Charles E. Erdman. For more on Erdman read Hart’s “Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America”. I also picked up a copy of Machen’s Greek textbook.
LikeLike
I sidetracked us badly, but returning to Tom’s comment above:
Tom – Chill, people, judge nothing before the appointed time. You don’t know how His Will will play out. The moment of our death takes millions and billions of years. A lot can happen in that time, eh?
Erik – Tom gets on us for holding to Scripture. Exactly what is his source for that nugget of belief?
LikeLike
Compare to Hebrews 9:27 –
“And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,”
LikeLike
Count me in!
LikeLike
I heard (incorrectly, in my opinion) that Hart was getting beat up at CTC so I made some (rare) comments there. I am memorializing them here in case they don’t make it through “moderation” (aka Comment Purgatory):
Dave H. – By these same standards we need to reject St. Peter as well. He was the guy who denied Jesus three times. Moses and David had some pretty poor judgment as well.
Erik – Other than refusing to eat with gentiles, what other failures of Peter do you have in mind? Can you point to other post-resurrection failures of apostles akin to failures of Popes?
Bryan,
If it is unfair for us to make you answer for the views of aberrant Catholics (Gary Wills, for example), how is it fair for you to make us answer for the 700 Club? You are aware of our Confessional Standards (The Three Forms of Unity & The Westminster Standards). You should aim your rebuttals at those (if being charitable is your aim).
One of CTC’s primary arguments is that surely Christ intended to leave us with one visible, united, true church. We identify marks of true churches (Belgic 29). Have at rebutting those:
Article 29: The Marks of the True Church
We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church– for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of “the church.”
We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves “the church.”
The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church– and no one ought to be separated from it.
As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.
Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.
As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.
These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.
Being straightforward with you guys – If I am to ever become convinced to become Catholic I would need to become convinced of the fact that Popes are on par with apostles. I think it would be a big uphill climb to convince me of that.
How do you guys feel about Pope Francis offering indulgences for people who follow his Tweets during World Youth Day? That seems so gimmicky and crass to me.
Another question for you guys: You seems to have a lot of concern with the notion of “private judgment”. If some private judgments are right, however, and others are wrong, isn’t the real problem INCORRECT private judgments and not private judgments, per se?
Hart has made the point that you seem to believe that Popes (and the church) can and do err at times. How do you get around your (or someone else’s) private judgment to determine when these errors have taken place?
My contention is that you have started with the notion that there has to be one (and only one) true, united, visible, Christian church. Having to maintain that notion drives everything else that you do at CTC. This desire for “unity” seems to be the primary factor that has driven you from Protestant churches to Rome.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 20, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
I sidetracked us badly, but returning to Tom’s comment above:
Tom – Chill, people, judge nothing before the appointed time. You don’t know how His Will will play out. The moment of our death takes millions and billions of years. A lot can happen in that time, eh?
Erik – Tom gets on us for holding to Scripture. Exactly what is his source for that nugget of belief?
1 Corinthians 4:5.
Actually, I was musing about the salvation question–my core challenge was to some people’s certainty that Muslims [or by extension Jews] do not/cannot love God. I don’t accept your theology.
LikeLike
Tom – I don’t accept your theology.
Erik – I get that. But what is the source of your belief that:
“The moment of our death takes millions and billions of years. A lot can happen in that time, eh?”
Is that Eastern? (i.e. somehow related to reincarnation)
LikeLike
Tom,
You quote 1 Corinthians 4:5 –
The Nature of True Apostleship (NIV note)
4 This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.
The context seems to be Paul’s defending his apostleship, does it not? How does that apply to your point about Muslims loving God?
Do you think Muslim’s love for God would have to be perfect to merit salvation? If not perfect, how much love for God do they need to have?
If love for God is all that is required for salvation, why did Christ have to die on the cross?
LikeLike
Erik,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us here too, while we eagerly wait to see whether you make it through comment purgatory at CtoC.
I think my biggest beef with them is connected with the idea of your last paragraph. Specifically when you say, “My contention is that you have started with the notion that there has to be one (and only one) true, united, visible, Christian church.”
My goal is to get them to define what they mean when they want the church to be “united.” My hunch says that for them, unity means all Christian churches swearing allegiance to the bishop of Rome, and for the bishop of Rome to have final say on all doctrinal matters. Only then, once every Christian church agrees to have her doctrine checked by the Bishop of Rome, will unity be achieved.
The thought seems to be that is the only way forward for Christian unity, one based on the Bishop of Rome (or perhaps more broadly, they need One person, or maybe more generously, a “magisterium” to be able to decide all matters of doctrine, definitively).
But anyone who has been paying attention for some time, can see they are creating a false dilemma. Unity can be achieved without the Bishop of Rome. Signing every church up to be under his leadership solves nothing. The CtoC is a polemic website that misrepresents what confessional Protestants believe, left and right. I was reading an article on authority by Ray Stamper. It’s off in many places, but do I really have the time to pick it apart and explain where they make mistakes?
Why would any curious Catholic, curious about reformed theology, listen to a bunch of Catholics who were one Reformed? Why not go ask the reformed themselves?
So the whole thing is a ruse. They need to define unity, is my main point. You wanna know my response? Unity is everyone signs up to the constitution of the OPC. It’s just the converse of what they want. Every church is out to increase their membership roles, have nicer buildings, etc. But here’s why we indeed are superior. We don’t tie salvation to the OPC constituion. We tie to God’s work alone, before the foundation of the world. Sean is the best person here who picks apart RCism like no one I’ve ever seen before. He’s amazing, in my opinion. I was just a guy who was curious about RCism and found catholics who would respond to me over there. But you get the same answers over and over and over. They’ve been at it a while, just look at Bryan’s analysis of some of DG Hart’s writing from 2007. So this goes back at least 7 years, between these guys, maybe more. The one thing I do appreciate is finding people who care about theology and are willing to talk to me about their beliefs. But once you realize it is the Christian Religion, with Christ as the head of the church, who is leading His church through this temporal life, the Roman Catholic Church is just another grouping among many, with that one having started with the council of Trent in the 16th century. I would expect the church of 1 billion plus members (the Roman Catholic Church) to indeed have a website of their people who have left from protestant communions, who wish to engage with curious reformed Christians (as I was last year), to have questions answered, in the hope that I too might join with them. Their secondary goal is, when finding a firmly convicted protestant Christian as I am, to help me not be so antagonistic against other Roman Catholics I find. And so in that sense, they don’t bother me. But what bothered me about Bryan’s last comment is his opining on the protestant’s view of ecclesiastical authority, and as you can see, Darryl saw the exact same thing. Why should anyone listen to someone who quit Protestantism 6 years ago, about their views on Protestantism? Why not ask a Protestant? Your posting over their looks good, but I’ve found they simply don’t take my questions seriously, or try to show that somehow I haven’t got my logic straight. It’s planet vulcan over there, serious. Or the Borg apologetic, as we say, which is a little more harsh. Go check some of Jason’s latest comments on his blog too, he talks about how the Roman church views herself as the mother church. I mean, all we have to do is read what they write, and draw our own conclusions. I’ve now already said too much, and I’ve got a golf game to start thinking about, on Monday. Sean’s the guy around here who’s worth listening to. I’m just a golfer..
LikeLike
Tom,
Keep in mind that my goal is not so much to convince you that what I believe is correct, merely to show you that it is coherent in light of Scripture. Scripture could not be what it claims to be (God breathed), but that’s another question.
My second goal is to determine whether or not what you believe is correct (or at least coherent). Does it merely emerge from your own mind as a mix-and-match of many things that you have read and pondered, or can it be identified as some religion that already exists? I’m not too impressed with churches of one. Those folks usually end up to be kind of nuts in my experience.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Bottom line I think most of these guys were very disturbed to find themselves in small churches that not many people were paying attention to and decided that there had to be another way. Rome is big, old, and makes grand claims for its own authority so that was very appealing to them.. These guys were happy in Reformed churches for awhile because it was a step up from evangelicalism (note that Stellman emerged from the Calvary Chapel, Cross from Pentecostalism), but ultimately it wasn’t enough. Will they still be with Rome in 20 years? Time will tell.
LikeLike
Very well said, Erik. They probably will be in Rome still. They’ll still be the biggest. But think of what they gave up. Quite sad, really. Thanks for that.
LikeLike
I’m appealing to Tom to be forthcoming and make his case for what he believes here. How about everyone cut him some slack and cut out any personal insults while he is doing that (if he does)?
Based on what he has written we would make the case that he is not an orthodox Christian. We, on the other hand, are for the most part P&R elders, pastors, and church members. How about holding ourselves to a higher standard based on our own professions?
If he doesn’t engage, though, the next step may be just ignoring him (especially if he is insulting to the host). Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for a time, though, o.k.?
LikeLike
Erik – I get that. But what is the source of your belief that:
“The moment of our death takes millions and billions of years. A lot can happen in that time, eh?”
Is that Eastern? (i.e. somehow related to reincarnation)
No, not Eastern, really. Not my thing. Closer to the story of the Good Thief than Carl Spackler.
Do you think Muslim’s love for God would have to be perfect to merit salvation? If not perfect, how much love for God do they need to have?
I don’t know. But having read a zillion opinions, I think a lot of things are possible in soteriology [the business of salvation] than are accounted for in many Christian schemes–but still not be in conflict with the Bible.
If love for God is all that is required for salvation, why did Christ have to die on the cross?
You have your own battles with the rest of Christendom about whether Jesus dies for ALL men, not just you. I see no reason for us to replay that script. My answer again would be that I don’t know, and I don’t think you can know for sure either.
I’m appealing to Tom to be forthcoming and make his case for what he believes here. How about everyone cut him some slack and cut out any personal insults while he is doing that (if he does)?
I appreciate that, Erik. There are some things I believe more than others, like that there is a God, and He’s not just some deaf dumb and blind watchmaker. I believe dogmas and doctrines can be imperfect without being WRONG, and that there can be doctrines that appear to be in opposition that can be reconciled [somewhat] with some good-faith discussion and study.
“Test everything, hold fast to the good” is the best method for this sort of thing, I’d say, and waving flags for Church X vs. Theology Y just gets in the way. I do believe that there is One Truth, not five or 6 billion, and to work towards it is what it means to love God with our whole mind–not that we can necessarily know the One Truth, but that we seek it with all our heart and strength.
LikeLike
Thanks for those sincere answers, Tom.
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 20, 2013 at 5:11 pm | Permalink
Erik,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us here too, while we eagerly wait to see whether you make it through comment purgatory at CtoC.
I think my biggest beef with them is connected with the idea of your last paragraph. Specifically when you say, “My contention is that you have started with the notion that there has to be one (and only one) true, united, visible, Christian church.”
My goal is to get them to define what they mean when they want the church to be “united.” My hunch says that for them, unity means all Christian churches swearing allegiance to the bishop of Rome, and for the bishop of Rome to have final say on all doctrinal matters. Only then, once every Christian church agrees to have her doctrine checked by the Bishop of Rome, will unity be achieved.
That’s the theology, but the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church–which rejects the authority of the papacy and RCC magisterium–have a workable and working détente where they recognize each others’ sacraments. It need not be all or nothing. Indeed, the Roman Church is accepting refugee clergy from the Anglican church of England without re-administering the sacrament of Holy Orders [ordination], and further [!] accepting these refugees as married men. This concedes a lot more than you might give theological credit–“if it’s not Catholic, it’s crap!” isn’t the functional theology.
The thought seems to be that is the only way forward for Christian unity, one based on the Bishop of Rome (or perhaps more broadly, they need One person, or maybe more generously, a “magisterium” to be able to decide all matters of doctrine, definitively).
But anyone who has been paying attention for some time, can see they are creating a false dilemma.
Unity can be achieved without the Bishop of Rome. Signing every church up to be under his leadership solves nothing.
If I read the grumblings and ecclesiatical indictments right, I make it you have Peter Leithart halfway across the Tiber. Still, his latest
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/07/church-in-the-metropolis
is undeniable, that “denominationalism” is on the ropes, at least along the denominational lines that have become so familiar. It would be presumptuous to assume that Christianity will continue to replay the last 500 years of its history ad infinitum, split after spit, schism after schism.
I expect there’ll still be Protestantism in another 500 years, but it’s not unreasonable to predict Christianity will be back in the catacombs well before then either. History’s funny that way.
The CtoC is a polemic website that misrepresents what confessional Protestants believe, left and right. Why would any curious Catholic, curious about reformed theology, listen to a bunch of Catholics who were one Reformed?
This observer disagrees: a comparison of their front pages suggests that this Reformed website is far more concerned with Roman Catholic errors than vice-versa. The Called to Communion website–in this observer’s opinion–is, as is the modern Roman Catholic custom of at least the past century and a half, more devoted to apologetics, not polemics.
Which is an interesting point in itself, that the Roman church bears the weight of all the errors of Christendom since circa 29 CE—the Reformation gets off comparatively Scot-free, and indeed is one of the foremost prosecutors.
But that’s a historical discussion.
Why not go ask the reformed themselves?
Because they’re so crabby?
MebbeMaybe it’s that they fled Geneva as much as emigrated to Rome.LikeLike
If a pope and Magisterium is necessary to create unity, and the schisms that have accelerated in the new world are the logical consequence of protestantism, one might wonder why we don’t see the same phenomenon among other religious groups such Judaism, Islam, etc… I can count the Islamic variants in the mid-east on my fingers (not sure these are greater than mid-east christian variants). In the US however, there are all kinds of islamic inspired religions that sprouted up in the 20th century (and this a decidedly minority religion). Maybe the denominationalism in the US has less to do with the theological specifics of Prot vs RCC than entrepreneurialism, religious tolerance, freedom, and wealth.
LikeLike
sdb, that’s right. It’s socio-political, not theological (at least at one level). If you have a magistrate enforcing belief, you get conformity. That’s why the neo-Cals and theonomists long for a magistrate to enforce the law, and why trad RC’s long for a pope with temporal power. But the genie of 1789 is out of the bottle
LikeLike
Tom,
You can analyze my opinions posted here at OldLife all you want. But since you are here and are sticking up for the Roman types, can you help me with this question? Answer only if you want to. Here I go.
At the First Things article, (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/25/gresham-machen-friend-to-catholics/) Machen is quoted, as saying,
“And how should we have any respect for them if, holding the view which they hold — that outside the Roman church there is no salvation — they did not engage in propaganda first, last, and all the time? Clearly they have a right to do so, and clearly we have a right to do the same”
Hopefully, if you go to CtoC and read the latest spat of comments, you’ll think me at least respectful of Bryan. Indeed, my comment (currently sitting in moderation, maybe (mebbe?) it’s really controversial (snicker) or maybe it’s just part of the “propoganda” scheme to hold things up…I digress) to end my time there, this time, reads as follows:
“Bryan, (re: 51)
Thank you for your interaction here. While we do not see eye to eye on the nature of Protestant ecclesiology, I respect you and your opinions, and will continue to read what you write with interest.
Thanks again,
AB”
So fine. Machen and I say that RCism has the right to engage in propaganda first, last, and all the time, and so do we. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what they are up to. In fact, even a guy who just likes to golf on occasion and works for a living might find the time to engage in discussion at times, albeit briefly and not to substantively, due to lack of knowledge on most of the discussion topics raised. So if I have a question, can you see why some get a little sarcastic (cynical?) about life here on our interwebs, and how people try to use these blogs to further their ends? I always come back to “theater of the absurd” at this point in my conclusions of all this:
“Let’s conclude by bringing the point home to the church: the danger of an uncritical attitude to the web and to blogging is that it comports very easily with the conversational model of theology which is now gaining currency among the advocates of advanced modernism (aka postmodernism) of the Western church situation, where `Thus saith the Lord’ is being displaced by `Come in, God, me old pal. Let’s have a cup of coffee and a chat.’ The absolute democratization of knowledge to which an uncritical attitude to blogging etc leads is, after all, inimical to any hierarchical view of truth, and thoroughly comfortable with the `this is my truth now tell me yours’ approach which is gaining ground even as I write.
So how do we go about combating this? Well, we cannot abandon web-based media so we should not try. Yet it seems to me the only way to avoid being co-opted into the pompous and arrogant numptiness of a world where students claim to be scholars and pit-bulls genuinely lament the unacceptable aggression of poodles is to do one of two things. We could make sure that the stuff we read in the virtual world is backed up by achievements out there in the real world. If a blogmeister is a bishop in the Catholic Church or has been moderator of a Presbyterian denomination or has a string of peer-reviewed publications in a given field, the term `self-appointed’ is somewhat different when applied to that person than to some kid with an appetite for self-publicity and a networked computer in his bedroom. The latter certainly has a right to speak; but the former has actually earned the right to be heard.
Or you could try another way, what we might call the `Samuel Beckett’ option: face this theatre of the absurd head-on; join in with the other nobodies pretending to be somebodies; laugh at your own ridiculous complicity in this nonsense; expose the systemic contradictions for all they are worth; mock the blogworld for all of its inane self-importance; and in so doing try in some small way to subvert the system from the inside. It may not ultimately work; but you’ll have fun in the process. Isn’t that right, Del-Boy?”
http://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/post-46.php
Ultimately, my question to Bryan, when I started out there recently, was trying to figure out who he thinks he “speaks for,” as represents what the protestant view of ecclesiastical authority. Notice he doesn’t answer, in fact, I didn’t expect him to even post the comment. That’s fine. I was only looking to engage in discussion, again, I didn’t expect him to answer. My sense is that because he has been a blogmeister for so long, he has written many articles, and many of his readers give him metaphorical high fives at his writing, that he has the liberty to reduce a huge question (i.e. the nature of protestant ecclesiastical authority) and opine on it in a public forum that purports to be a place for reformed Christians and Catholics to dialog. I say, with Darryl, the “game is rigged,” and I wipe the dust off my feet with my last comment out there. I may post again. But I would be interested to hear of your experience, if you try to engage them. I don’t ultimately view all this I am doing on the interwebs as a game – I do view this as very important. That’s also why I am undertaking reading DG’s latest book, and Fesko’s book on vacation. So with that, I’m signing off to say that I will be reading along the lines I think will help these discussions, and I don’t plan to post publicly until I think I can actually be of help. As in the case to CtoC, if I’ve done nothing else but state my position that I disagree with Bryan, that’s fine with me. I wish people on the internet would limit some of their writing to just that, and admit they are stating opinions, and it would avoid a lot of us having to read long articles, or long combox posts like this one. Again, share opinions on what I write, whomever I write to, whenever you like, all you like. Now that I think about it, not sure there’s a question in this post :o) But there you have it,
AB
LikeLike
Tom, to add to my post directly above, my most recent discussions out there started here, with my first post Friday night:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/#comment-53286
Thoughts?
LikeLike
TVD, your comment about apologetics and polemics doesn’t even pass the smell test when the subheading of CtC’s website reads; “the reformation meets rome”. It also quite frankly dishonest when all their apologetic advances are done off the back off it’s antagonist in the reformation and their own testimony, as former protestants, to the veracity of their polemic; ecclesial deism, solo scriptura, tu quoque I and II, conversion stories of refugees from confessional reformed churches(they get particularly geeked about the pastors who break ranks, then the seminarians). It’s also disingenuous or blind, you choose, when they put these out for public consumption in service of ecumenism championed by Ratzinger and then when it’s given back they plead; lack of charity. I much prefer a snarl from my opponent to a smile. It’s more virtuous, and rightly regards my capacity. Sticking the knife in while smiling and claiming otherwise is patronizing, elitist and likely to draw back a bloody stump.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross – The Protestant agrees with his ecclesial authority because he picked them on the basis of their agreement with his interpretation of Scripture. By contrast, the Catholic agrees with the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture because he has submitted to their interpretive authority, having chosen to submit to them not on the basis of their their agreement with his interpretation of Scripture, but on the basis of their being the successors of the Apostles in the Church Christ founded.
Erik – Where does Bryan ever prove that the latter approach is superior to the former? He doesn’t, he just assumes it. He ignores that fact that proving that the Roman Catholic Church is “the successors of the Apostles” is not just plain to everyone. If you say, “prove it”, Bryan will point you to the Motives of Credibility, which he says are obviously true. When you say they aren’t he’ll accuse you of being uncharitable. It’s all become very tedious and predictable.
LikeLike
My biggest beef with the CTC apologetic is the air of superiority that they take. You can have an apologetic that just lays out what you believe without having to cop an attitude. I’ve known Catholics my entire life and have never had any of them come off like Bryan and Jason. It’s like they’ve imported the Calvinist cage phase to Rome.
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 21, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink
Tom, to add to my post directly above, my most recent discussions out there started here, with my first post Friday night:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/#comment-53286
Thoughts?
Not many that you want to hear. Perhaps Tyndale can help you, although More’s argument continues to hold.
Click to access moretyndale.pdf
It is fascinating to see the same battle come alive 500 years later, though also kind of tragic.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 21, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
Bryan Cross – The Protestant agrees with his ecclesial authority because he picked them on the basis of their agreement with his interpretation of Scripture. By contrast, the Catholic agrees with the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture because he has submitted to their interpretive authority, having chosen to submit to them not on the basis of their their agreement with his interpretation of Scripture, but on the basis of their being the successors of the Apostles in the Church Christ founded.
Erik – Where does Bryan ever prove that the latter approach is superior to the former?
You appear to be conceding his point; whether one’s better than the other would be the next question.
LikeLike
Dear “AB”,
I remain uncertain as to the substance of the message Darryl intended to convey with his rhetorical questions, or this post in general.
You said: “Calling this change in membership a ‘conversion experience’ seems to indicate to me that you and your fellow members at Called to Communion believe yourselves to be in a different religion than Christianity.”
I think it seems to indicate that to you because you take the word conversion to mean “A change of religion.” If the word conversion meant “A change of religion,” then it would be inapt for us to describe Protestant-to-Catholic changes of belief as “conversions.” If you are a Trinitarian Protestant Christian, then you and I are co-religionists, although in schism.
But the word conversion encompasses more changes than jut changes of “religion.” I find this American Heritage definition helpful: “A change in which one adopts a new religion, faith, or belief.” Certainly, a change from Calvinism to Catholicism involves a change of belief.
Peace in Christ,
Tom B.
LikeLike
Tom – You appear to be conceding his point; whether one’s better than the other would be the next question.
Erik – That is indeed the next question. You are starting to understand. We use the term QIRC (“Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty”) to describe what the Callers are doing. Bryan comes across like the truth of Catholicism and the falsehood of Reformed Protestantism are painfully obvious. As my pastor would say, “Poppycock!”. These religious questions ultimately come down to faith, not logic.
I think most of the Callers were facing an existential crisis before their conversions. Rome was a way to assuage their doubts about the entire Christian faith. What better way to assuage them than to heed the call of a man (The Pope) who points to a literal connection to Jesus Christ in time and space! Is this what our Christian faith is supposed to be grounded in, though? I have always said that the next step for many of these guys is atheism. For now they are still clinging to something (The Pope) to maintain their faith, but nagging doubts will eventually get the better of some of them and they’ll abandon the faith entirely.
Christians are indeed required to walk by faith and not by sight. QIRC will eventually disappoint smart people.
LikeLike
The Protestant version of QIRC is seeking out miracles, signs, and wonders to confirm the truth of the Christian faith (although many Catholics are hugely into this as well). If you are seeking to be convinced by anything other than reading the Scriptures you are going to be disappointed.
LikeLike
Tom,
A 236 page link? We have day jobs.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 21, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
Tom,
A 236 page link? We have day jobs.
The essential arguments can be skimmed in under 5 minutes. Since it’s a historic and authoritative debate [Tyndale was a Reformist pioneer; More was tapped by the Pope], it’s wellllll worth your time.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 21, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
Tom – You appear to be conceding his point; whether one’s better than the other would be the next question.
Erik – That is indeed the next question. You are starting to understand. We use the term QIRC (“Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty”) to describe what the Callers are doing. Bryan comes across like the truth of Catholicism and the falsehood of Reformed Protestantism are painfully obvious. As my pastor would say, “Poppycock!”. These religious questions ultimately come down to faith, not logic.
I think most of the Callers were facing an existential crisis before their conversions. Rome was a way to assuage their doubts about the entire Christian faith. What better way to assuage them than to heed the call of a man (The Pope) who points to a literal connection to Jesus Christ in time and space! Is this what our Christian faith is supposed to be grounded in, though? I have always said that the next step for many of these guys is atheism. For now they are still clinging to something (The Pope) to maintain their faith, but nagging doubts will eventually get the better of some of them and they’ll abandon the faith entirely.
Christians are indeed required to walk by faith and not by sight. QIRC will eventually disappoint smart people.
Their argument is that they also have faith in Jesus’ promise of leaving behind a church, not just a scripture yet to be written for another 40 years. That’s an even faithier “faith claim.”
As for your argument, it would be instructive to speak the RCC language, perhaps all the things John Paul II apologized for, i.e., where the RCC was in some sort of now-acknowledged error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II
It may not win you the debate, but clarity would benefit greatly. In the least the “infallibility” question would be properly framed—not just “The Church/Magisterium is never wrong” versus “If the Church was wrong on Issue X, then its claim to infallibility is wrong, therefore the RCC is bogus,” which are each indefensible and dishonest absolutes.
LikeLike
Tom,
Are you aware that the Reformation continued after Tyndale?
There are these guys named Luther, Calvin, the Westminster Divines and this thing called the Counter-Reformation?
I’m being a wise guy, but I assume you get my point. If More’s argument was the end of the story it all would have presumably stopped right there. Tyndale died in 1536.
LikeLike
Bryan – From our faith-based belief in the uninterrupted endurance and thus continuity of Christ’s Church, it does not follow that there can be no problems within the Church, and thus that we must “hide our eyes” from such problems. So there is no need to worry that if we believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church Christ founded, we will have some reason to hide our eyes from problems within the Church. Rather than presume intellectual dishonesty on our part, the better (and more charitable) approach would be to request that we address some problem or problems you think need to be addressed when discussing Catholic-Protestant reconciliation.
Erik – So how do you identify what is a problem?
LikeLike
And as a layman, who has given you the task of identifying and fixing problems?
(I need to stay off of CTC. I need to post on another blog like I need to get a terminal disease…)
LikeLike
Tom – Their argument is that they also have faith in Jesus’ promise of leaving behind a church, not just a scripture yet to be written for another 40 years. That’s an even faithier “faith claim.”
Erik – And exactly who wrote the Scriptures?
O.K. So the church apologizes for past failures. At the time they failed, did practicing Catholics know that they were failing? How does a practicing Catholic on July 21, 2013 know what his church is currently failing at?
LikeLike
Why doesn’t the pope spare everybody, invoke infallibility, and get it all right the first time?
LikeLike
Erik — O.K. So the church apologizes for past failures. At the time they failed, did practicing Catholics know that they were failing? How does a practicing Catholic on July 21, 2013 know what his church is currently failing at?
Robert — That is exactly why I have said that Roman Catholicism’s doctrine of infallibility has “no cash value.” During the Avignon papacy, two out of the three popes were false popes but the people of that day especially had no way to know that. They didn’t have access to the written tradition. There was no way to evaluate them. They had no idea if they were following false teaching. I guess, though, according to RC, the laypeople had an out.
Jason Stellman has said that infallibility doesn’t mean that one can never exegete Scripture if one is not part of the Magisterium, it just means that one cannot exegete Scripture in a way that is contrary to the teaching of the church where it has declared an interpretation infallible. Although I would normally by no means run to him as an expert on all things Roman Catholic, he is generally right about that. (Of course, I won’t get into the fact that Rome didn’t want anyone reading the Bible until very recently, but that’s another issue). The problem is that how I exegete Scripture today may run contrary to what the Magisterium says is infallible tomorrow. So I have no idea if today I am reading the Bible rightly, which should lead, in theory, to great uncertainty and deference on the part of Roman Catholic exegetes (the few that there are). As we have seen with Jason, Bryan, etc, they are awfully certain that their interpretation is not just human opinion. It is very inconsistent.
LikeLike
Erik,
If the pope invoked infallibility every time, it would get him backed into corners and cause problems for the later church. I think he’s smart enough to realize he better not do that. After all, Roman Catholicism has so many twists and turns that are causing PhD guys to perform incredible contortions of reason to figure out how a change is not really a change. I think he just feels sorry for the CTC guys. They’re job is hard enough already.
The lack of an infallible list of infallible teachings is also a good way to keep the people docile. List too many things infallibly, and you might have a revolt and mass defections when the facts force you to change your mind and the people with common sense notice it. Keep things ambiguous, and you can always say “Well, the church wasn’t speaking infallibly on that.
You have to give Rome credit. They’ve fixed the game in their favor for those who aren’t really paying attention.
LikeLike
That is, “their job”
LikeLike
I’m going to have to pass on an OL gathering. I can’t even drive 5 hours to meet my fellow Lutheran mommy blogresses (blogettes?) who are in St. Louis while their pastor-husbands are at Synod Convention (my husband is not a pastor). Be sure to post pictures, though!
My initial impression of CtC and especially of Jason Stellman is that they are the new Scott Hahn (10-15 years ago fundamentalist Baptist minister converted and then wrote a bunch of books). I listened to an interview with Stellman the other day, and I was disconcerted by his uninterest in Patristics during his California sem days (he said he didn’t pay attention), and I was also struck by his Emergent vocabulary (“paradigm,” etc.). I get the impression he still is uninterested in Patristics and didn’t do any research himself. My husband and I met a former Presbyterian (OPC)-minister-turned-papist last year who is applying to be a priest (it’s not just the Anglicans, folks)–I was quite shocked to hear he doesn’t really have to go through any substantial theology retraining to become a priest. I would be quite upset if I were in his future parish. My husband small-talk joked a bit with him about the Reformed theology and practices they both left behind, but it all ended depressingly, because the acquaintance really seemed to have no idea what he left behind when he became RC, and could not comprehend why we would stay in a Reformation church. They buy into the Rome vs. All other Western Christendom “paradigm” Rome has promulgated. Stellman has said, on whether he would consider other Reformation confessions: “We’re talking about big, paradigmatic [there’s that word again] issues here rather than mere differences over details. If Geneva and Saddleback exist in the same county, then Wittenberg is right next door.”
I don’t have a problem with commenters linking to 236 pages of documents and primary texts. Ultimately, reading the Fathers is what convinced me to not become Roman, but be confirmed Lutheran. It really grates my Roman friends to hear that, but they leave me alone about it and don’t badger me about church history, since I sometimes know more than they do about it.
LikeLike
Katy – I’m going to have to pass on an OL gathering.
Erik – [Hangs head sadly]
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 21, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Are you aware that the Reformation continued after Tyndale?
There are these guys named Luther, Calvin, the Westminster Divines and this thing called the Counter-Reformation?
I’m being a wise guy, but I assume you get my point. If More’s argument was the end of the story it all would have presumably stopped right there. Tyndale died in 1536.
More’s arguments still hold, at least in your debate with Bryan. I suggested you try some of Tyndale’s or at least familiarize yourself with them, as yours aren’t doing very well.
Tom – Their argument is that they also have faith in Jesus’ promise of leaving behind a church, not just a scripture yet to be written for another 40 years. That’s an even faithier “faith claim.”
Erik – And exactly who wrote the Scriptures?
You’re trying to turn around an argument against your position, but that doesn’t work. The point is that the Church existed BEFORE the New Testament, not after. It’s a variation of the canonicity argument–“the Church decided what’s in the Bible” argument–but even cleaner.
O.K. So the church apologizes for past failures. At the time they failed, did practicing Catholics know that they were failing? How does a practicing Catholic on July 21, 2013 know what his church is currently failing at?
I think you should ask Bryan. I think this line is among your strongest. In the least it should help clarify what both of you mean by the Magisterium’s claim to infallibility and make for a more honest debate.
LikeLike
Not going to disagree that the differences between the RC and all others are huge, the CtC just aren’t really interested in discussing those differences if they’re lumping saddleback with confessional churches.
LikeLike
Their argument is that they also have faith in Jesus’ promise of leaving behind a church, not just a scripture yet to be written for another 40 years. That’s an even faithier “faith claim.”
You’re trying to turn around an argument against your position, but that doesn’t work. The point is that the Church existed BEFORE the New Testament, not after. It’s a variation of the canonicity argument–”the Church decided what’s in the Bible” argument–but even cleaner.
IOW more of the same old same old from somebody who believes the pursuit of the truth is more noble, never mind possible, than the actual possession of the truth.
But for the Record and regardless of what difference that may or may not make (the latter which generally seems to be the case in this and like instances), Christ is the Word of God become flesh. Because ultimately like it or not, Rome at least makes a drive by appeal to the authority of Scripture, much more existence of promises by Christ in Scripture to justify its existence as the true indefectible and infallible church.
More to the point, just exactly how did the church become the church but for the preaching of the same apostolic word/traditions which were later enscripturated (i.e. written down) upon the approaching death of the apostles and their passing from the scene? …………………………..
(Gotta love the unanimous consent of the crickets.)
Again this is just more of the same old elementary questions about the doctrine of Scripture which both puzzled and scandalized Mr. Stellman to the point that he felt justified in jumping to the typical CtC non sequitur: It obviously makes sense that Jesus would leave us an infallible teaching authority/church after he ascended.
As for the Word and the Holy Spirit? Nah, they’re both over rated.
Trust us/just listen to us. The lost apostolic oral tradition is both sufficient and perspicuous and clearly contradicts, if not overrides the testimony of Scripture in numerous places.
Which means we’re right and protestantism is subjective performativism.
My question is when will CtC start honoring requests to grant indulgences from purgatory if the pope gets snowed under on his offer via twitter?
I predict it will be performatively sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
Bob, exactly the points I was going to make about the Word of God and the apostles’ teaching being taught and spread way before canonicity standards and councils.
The most unhelpful thing in this whole discussion is the assumption by the RC and almost all but the nerdiest Prots that the 21st c. Roman church is the same church as the 4th century, 8th century, 12th century and 16th century church. Too many Prots concede this, dismissing 1300 years of church (as in real Christians in real churches) history to the “dark ages.” Remember Luther and Calvin were medieval men and products of the Middle Ages.
LikeLike
Hi Tom B,
I appreciate your response. You can call me “Andrew,” as Erik does, if you like. I simply use my initials when posting public comments in theology blogs.
See you around,
Andrew
LikeLike
TVD,
I don’t wanna hear? That reminded me of the line in Weird Al’s UHF, when Stanley asks, “what’s wrong, George?” George says, “you dont want to know.” Scratching his head, Stanely says, “hmmm…why’d I ask?”
If I were Erik, it would have been a YouTube link. I’m not that cool. Yet.
Later.
LikeLike
Tom,
My desire to dialogue with Bryan is right up there with my desire to use sandpaper to wipe my butt. Life’s too short.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 21, 2013 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
Tom,
My desire to dialogue with Bryan is right up there with my desire to use sandpaper to wipe my butt. Life’s too short.
Yah, it’s sort of how Bob S spends so many posts declaring he doesn’t care what I think. 😉
I’ve been monitoring Darryl and now his Old Life surrogates over at the Called to Communion site. If you’re not learning anything, well, I am–about them, about y’all when you’re off your home ground. Internet discussions are colloquies anyway–intended for third-party readers, not so much changing the other fellow’s mind. Rock on.
[BTW, I saw why y’all try to mock Bryan Cross’ training in logic/philosophy. He scorched an Old Lifer today on formal grounds alone. Logos is a fair standard in Christian theological discussion, in my opinion. They never caught Jesus in a self-contradiction or a logical fallacy, of course. Or Paul, to my knowledge.]
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 21, 2013 at 8:57 pm | Permalink
TVD,
I don’t wanna hear? That reminded me of the line in Weird Al’s UHF, when Stanley asks, “what’s wrong, George?” George says, “you dont want to know.” Scratching his head, Stanely says, “hmmm…why’d I ask?”
If I were Erik, it would have been a YouTube link. I’m not that cool. Yet.
Later.
Heh heh. Roger that, Andrew. And I was trying to give you guys some good arguments instead of the usual crap ones. And I was sincere—John Paul’s confession of the Church’s errors and sins across the ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II
presents a major opportunity for fresh discussion and dialogue, rather than just reruns of the same old [spit] of the past 500 years.
LikeLike
It’s not that Bryan is oh man so good at logic and other people aren’t.
It’s that Bryan uses technical objections as smoke screens in the informal context of blogs.
LikeLike
Also, JPII’s apologies aren’t too helpful in this discussion. CTCers just say he’s not infallibly apologizing for infallibly defined doctrine.
Problem solved.
LikeLike
Hint. Just because The VD thinks it so, don’t make it so.
As a skeptic he ought to know what I am talking about, but as usual he doesn’t.
Which is what happens when you receive not a love of the truth, Bryan’s vaunted dialectical prowess at obfuscation notwithstanding.
Yet another hint, if somebody can’t give us the correct protestant paradigm for revelation, both written and unwritten, they’re incompetent to criticize it. Which has been the problem of Bryan, Jase et al over at Called to Confusion from the get go. Further Bryan of all people ought to know that just because an argument is valid does not mean it is true, however much the obvious escapes the wanna be Belleramines.
cheers
LikeLike
A mere 236 pages, Erik, are we getting soft?
Used to be a man could link up at least 800 pages, all horrible scannings of olde English text, pretending they had read them (when they are a high school dropout.)
LikeLike
TVD, this isn’t difficult. Language isn’t math. Discussions and dialogue aren’t correct or incorrect because of the coherence or lack thereof of a syllogism one can craft. What you might, and I mean maybe, learn from those type of interactions is who’s better at syllogism’s. But, if that’s the end all purpose of the interaction, you’re not really interested in understanding and facilitating dialogue but besting the other person. That besting may or may not be representative of the veracity and substance of your position or theirs. Maintaining the integrity or your position AND your opponents in ecumenical dialogue is absolutely necessary to fruitful discussion. Otherwise it’s not ecumenical and not advancing the truth of your position against the actual contrary position, but a strawman. We’ve all engaged Bryan and any number of interlocutors at CtC for at least a year now, some of us longer. Is Bryan smart? I imagine. Is Bryan a trained philosopher who’s spent a lot of time and effort crafting boiler plate responses to common objections, absolutely. Do those responses often times skirt the theology of RC and/or the substance of the question being posed and/or the theology of confessional protestantism in favor of dinging the interlocutor for a sometimes valid and sometimes not so valid gap in the construction of their question or response? Indubitably. Is that type of engagement honest or even ecumenical, meaning trying to honestly bridge the gap in understanding and bring reconciliation? No. It’s an attempt to make you play the game on his terms, with his definitions and assuming his premises, and not to bring about reconciliation but compliance with his constructions. That’s all fine to a point, but even from an RC perspective, what if his constructions are not definitive or exhaustively representative, or in this case authoritative? Who does that redeem? How is that normative or conforming one to apostolic teaching or the power of the gospel to save? It’s not. At best it’s making ‘fanboys’ of Bryan Cross. This game isn’t difficult. Here’s the shorthand; RC rejects perspicuity of sacred text, protestants affirm. RC stipulates the need for interpretation of sacred text by SOLE INFALLIBLE magisterial authority, protestants deny. Protestants affirm conciliar but subjugated(councils may and do err) authority, RC denies both the protestant’s conciliar conclusions(creedal authority) and more formally the possibility of conciliar error-RC proper. Let the question begging flags fly
LikeLike
To me, the base of the debate at CtoC is that the church should be united in one government. Everything else they write is based on this as their goal.
I mean, I get it. Yesterday in church, we sang, “onward Christian soldiers,” which includes the line
“Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine, one in charity.”
But, and I know I’m going all Bryan Cross here at Old Life, they beg the question (snicker) that we Christians are not united. We as Christians are ALREADY UNITED on the basis of the gospel and common confession of the Christian Religion. The editor and chief even admitted as such in this tread, that he believes we are of the same religion, although in Schism. No Christian here is going to deny the Church is currently in Schism, I certainly won’t. CtoC is nothing more than a propaganda website, and with Machen, I believe that since these RCC fellows believe that salvation is tied to their church, they would be remiss to not engage in propaganda. Just as we too would be remiss if we do not engage in propaganda, for they are not minor errors we believe that Roman Catholicism proper is committing.
I think we can do them one better, when non-Christians enter our chatrooms and comboxes, to speak plainly and with minimal restriction, in order for people to feel free to express themselves among us. I, for one, am glad we don’t require someone to pass logic 101 before we agree to respond to any one’s given sincere inquiry.
In the end, I think we all kinda know what we have to do. Deuteronomy 29:29 kinda stuff, “but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law,” and Romans 14 kinda stuff,
“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”
Later.
LikeLike
Sean, you mean faith is not the sum of its logical parts? But if the muscular Reformed logicians hear you saying that you’ll be accused of hating your own brain. Sort of like the Baylys accusing of antinomianism (and faithlessness) for wanting to dial down the moral indignation.
LikeLike
Tom,
When Bryan is moderating comments how do you know whether or not the best comments are getting through?
LikeLike
My few interactions with Bryan have boiled down to an accusation of question begging. To summarize one interaction:
Me: The Immaculate Conception is not taught in Scripture
Bryan: Show Me How that’s the Case
Me: Mary calls God her Savior in Luke 2 and erroneously views Jesus as crazy during one visit with his family
Bryan: God applied salvation to Mary prior to conception, removing the stain of original sin and it never says Mary believed Jesus was out of her mind.
Me: You are interpolating things into the text that aren’t there and aren’t justified by the context
Bryan: You are begging the question by assuming sola Scriptura
CtC rigs the game from the get go. Anyone who does not automatically assume the truth of Rome is ultimately begging the question. If one is not careful, it can confuse you, which is why those who are enamored of valid arguments fall prey to their trap. Of course, an argument can be valid and still false if its premises are false. CtC builds arguments on a multitude of false premises. I don’t even know if they realize they are doing it. When you get a bunch of PhDs in philosophy together, the echo chamber can prevent you from truly listening to sound criticisms of your own position.
LikeLike
Erik,
Erik – Damned Pentecostal Roman Catholics…
Nah… I was Reformed at the time.
LikeLike
Zrim, Yep. It’s just stupid, and both sides got their DB’s. If both sides already know the irreconcilable ground, such that they’ve engaged paradigmatic considerations as opposed to tit for tat doctrinal rebuttals, what’s the point of playing syllogism coherence in a combox? What have you accomplished if you trip somebody up and get them to admit to a misrepresentation of their position, or worse yet get the conversation on your terms without the other side knowing it? I know a few things about jackassery, and that’s just jackassery. All you’ve done is forced me to default to the style of hat you sport. If you’re a white suburbanite guy sporting L.L. Cool J’s Kangol lid, you might be a weenie. Now, where’s the ecumenical spirit when you’ve forced me into such sophomoric retorts? I’m not edified and neither are you, though maybe it’s a win for me if I embarrass you enough to burn the lids and capris
LikeLike
Hi Katy,
Oops, I meant B well said. David, I also admire Ratzinger the theologian and pastor of St. John Lateran, but still hold the spiritual office he claimed as an antichrist. Sincere question: did you come to your conclusion about your church after you converted, since you said you waited until Ratzinger was elected? If you believed the roman church was Christ’s church, why did it matter who was Pope? What is your understanding now of the office of the holy ministry?
My comment at that point was, if memory serves, was half joking. I was Reformed – though Anglican at that point as I had a higher view of the sacraments and liturgy that made it difficult to remain Presbyterian. I certainly had a warmer view of the Catholic Church than I did previously, and was shocked by how biblically literate and what a first rate scholar Ratzinger was/is. So my biases were slowly fading. It was not until July of 2010 that I, along with my family, converted (reverted for me).
I have to be fully convinced both intellectually and affectively. I was convinced intellectually a few years prior but was so concerned about my children not having other devout families and a church community where their faith could thrive (as I had as an Evangelical/Reformed Christian) that I remained Anglican. I am a Bostonian afterall and Boston Catholic culture is not what it used to be – and frankly, I did not think devout Catholic families existed where I live. But some amazing providential encounters with devout Catholic famililes cured me of that. Honestly, the best Christian community I have encountered in over 40 years is my local Catholic community. Who knew?
It mattered who the Pope was back then to me (still does) because at the time, with my Protestant sensibilities, I had a hard time with JPII. Among the other things I mentioned the homesexual molestation scandals started here and under his pontificate. Rightly or wrongly, I saw him as responsible for not acting. So I had an emotional stumbling block based on my perception of current events.
The office is thoroughly biblical (Matthew 18) and I became convinced of it. But to have someone I actually admire become Pope, to my then Protestant mind, was impressive. I still think he is the best Pope to hold the office in my lifetime. But I am liking Pope Francis for different reasons and I know really appreciate JPII as I have more information than I did then and I am not anti-Catholic anymore… obviously. But to answer your question it does not matter in the big picture because the office holder is God’s servant and His choice. But it does matter to me in the same way that having a good local pastor matters to me.
LikeLike
Robert, so one can be simultaneously right and incorrect? Next you’ll say simultaneously dim and correct, which will then lead to simul justus et peccator.
LikeLike
Dave, think you meant Matt 16(:18).
In any case, saying that the papacy is “biblical” base on that text is of course smuggling Roman assumptions into it: that the keys are given to Peter alone (not supported by Matt 18 by the way), that Peter has successors who alone have these same keys, that the keys mean what Rome teaches, that the rock is Peter’s sole person (and not his confession or faith or Christ, one of which of these options many of the Fathers believed), etc.
So be real. It can’t be derived from the text. Those data are not present there.
LikeLike
From pages 154-155:
Acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ, as He is offered to us in the gospel of His redeeming work, is saving faith. Despairing of any salvation to be obtained by our own efforts, we simply trust in Him to save us; we say no longer, as we contemplate the Cross, merely “He saved others” or “He saved the world” or “He saved the Church”; but we say, every one of us, by the strange individualizing power of faith, “He loved we and gave Himself for me.” When a man once says that, in his heart and not merely with his lips, then no matter what his guilt may be, no matter how far he is beyond any human pale, no matter how little opportunity he has for making good the evil that he has done, he is a ransomed soul, a child of God forever.
http://archive.org/details/MN41619ucmf_6
As I was accused of using my own interpretative abilities alone in choosing my church authority, the words of Machen came to mind, and the strange “individualizing power of faith.”
No hope without, my friends,
AB
LikeLike
*He loved me and gave Himself for me.
LikeLike
Daniel,
I did mean Matthew 16:18. Thank you.
What was interesting to me as a Protestant who made the same or similar arguments – and this struck me, eventually, as a Protestant that we had no coherent explanation for this passage and all of the other ones related to it – along with Peter always being mentioned first… his leadership on Pentecost etc. It all makes the Catholic (even if you want to stick with the simpler definitions of the ECF’s – it was a minority of the Father’s btw who held other positions, btw and even for those it was not an either/or protestant argument) argument perfectly reasonable – if you do not have not already prejudged the Catholic position. From the Protestant perspective, especially given sola scriptura and scriptures perpescuity all this stuff with Peter is just odd and random and does not really make sense… I mean everyone knows James was the leader. Right?
I mean, do you really think Jesus changed Simons name to Peter prior to this because he was later going to do a confusing play on words while violating basic grammatical rules and sentence structure?
Hey, Rocky? Guess what… I changed your name, your identity as a Jewish man, to show the world that your confession (you specifically… not any of the other 11) is the rock on which the Church is built… or to show that I am The Rock but you are a little rock… but not the other guys… not even John… but you.
You see how even that view does not work against Peter’s unique role? Protestants simply do not have a positive alternative. Sometimes one just has to just go with the most likely explanation… like all Christians do with so many other passages.
LikeLike
I’ve not been convinced that being a leader, maybe even the most prominent one, makes you a pope. Especially when you sanity-check what the popes teach.
LikeLike
Why do Old Lifers argue with Neocalvinists/The Baylys on one side and Papists on the other?:
Because both obscure the gospel with all of their extracurricular activity. The gospel is God saving sinful men through Christ’s death on the cross. That becomes effectual through mere faith in what Christ has done. Protecting that is what Old Life is all about.
LikeLike
Kent – Used to be a man could link up at least 800 pages, all horrible scannings of olde English text, pretending they had read them (when they are a high school dropout.)
Erik – Nice.
LikeLike
Sean,
Nice post on Bryan. I would add that the foundation of his whole project is a faith-based assumption about the particular meaning of Jesus’ words to Peter. You can build on that foundation using all the logic you want, but it doesn’t make that faith-based foundation any more secure. This is why our debate with Bryan on the Motives of Credibility remains perhaps the single most important debate that we have carried on with him here.
http://literatecomments.com/?s=bryan+cross&submit=Search
LikeLike
Zrim: Robert, so one can be simultaneously right and incorrect? Next you’ll say simultaneously dim and correct, which will then lead to simul justus et peccator.
Robert: I’m not sure Bryan would say you have an infallible manner to make a principled distinction between your opinion and his. He has the infallible church, which is infallible because it says so.
And we’re the ones begging the question…
LikeLike
Dave,
I personally know few Reformed Protestants who would say in principle that it is wrong to give Peter some kind of first place among the apostolic band. One might even be able to say that the church is built on Him—He was the first to confess Christ and the first to preach to Gentiles and see them converted—issues of faith that are critical to the Christian religion as a whole.
The problem is leaping from there to a charism of infallibility that is passed down throughout the ages and somehow is still there even when the pope is a rank heretic or you have three of them and can’t figure out which one is the right one. The problem is leaping from there to assumptions about papal authority that were virtually unknown prior to Leo I, and even then he would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what Rome has done with its authority. The problem is leaping from there to ignoring the fact that we have absolutely no record of Peter ever saying “look for my successor in Rome to find the true church.” The problem is leaping from there to effectively excluding the other apostles from their equally important foundational role in the church.
In short, the problem is that you take an idiosyncratic interpretation of Matthew 16 and run off the cliff with it.
LikeLike
“He loved me and gave Himself for me.” Amen.
(Even if you do sing Onward Christian Soldiers.)
LikeLike
But Robert, Isn’t one infallible authority or 30,000 sects the only two plausible options?
LikeLike
Erik –
How does a practicing Catholic on July 21, 2013 know what his church is currently failing at?
Bryan-
By seeing where or when Catholic leaders and laity fall short of the truths and values preserved within the Tradition, whether theological truths or moral truths.
Erik –
How is this not exercising private judgment over and against your church? Shouldn’t you just give assent to what your church is doing and wait for them to tell you that she erred at some point in the future?
During the priest sex abuse scandal (while the offenses were taking place), did parishoners speak out or patiently endure abuse for the most part?
LikeLike
Fred – This realization came not in a fit of existential crisis but as a consequence of my own efforts to become a better Reformed Protestant!)
Erik – Would you care to expound?
I could be wrong about some of you, but as I’ve said before, time will tell.
I’ve known Catholics my entire life, and I just think many of you have become Catholic for the wrong reason — to assuage doubts about Protestantism. There is another possibility that we’re all all wet, that Christianity is not true, and there is not even a God. I honestly think some of you will end up at that point as you continue your “spiritual journeys”. And there is no doubt it has been a journey as many of you are on at least your third iteration of faith commitments.
This plays into my wishing that some of you had a more humble apologetic. If we couldn’t believe your first few iterations, why should we believe this one?
LikeLike
Thanks, Dave. That clears up my questions. (I believe as you do in distinguishing the man from the office, but we of course differ on the nature of the episcopacy–eternal or temporal.)
I found it rather shocking that Benedict resigned, and many of my Latin Mass/pre-VII friends thought it wrong.
I grew up in a very large homeschool community (our local schools are as bad–perhaps worse–than Chicago’s) with many devout Roman Catholic families, and I babysat for 4-5 said families when I was older, so I understand the sort of wonderful people you have surrounded yourself with. However, as my daughter’s godfather said when talking about our kids’ (ecumenical) homeschool group, the Reformed/Evangelical kids are in so many ways so much more like us (Lutheran) families who actually catechize our kids and have matins and vespers at home as a family, but in another way so far, far away. Anyway, to make his observation relevant to the discussion, the closer you are in some things, the more clear and bigger, really, the differences are (i.e. Justification, the sacraments). Unity is only possible when there is unity of doctrine.
LikeLike
Erik, re:
“Why do Old Lifers argue with Neocalvinists/The Baylys on one side and Papists on the other?:
Because both obscure the gospel with all of their extracurricular activity. The gospel is God saving sinful men through Christ’s death on the cross. That becomes effectual through mere faith in what Christ has done. Protecting that is what Old Life is all about.”
Calvin said there’s more to it than soteriology (which is why I would quibble with Katy):
“If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. ”
Calvin’s contention that mode of worship is more important than or equally important as doctrine is totally foreign and incomprehensible to most of our friends.
LikeLike
And I hope everyone likes my BC hat.
LikeLike
Quoth the cranky French expat:
“I come now to ceremonies, which, while they ought to be grave attestations of divine worship, are rather a mere mockery of God. A new Judaism, as a substitute for that which God had distinctly abrogated, has again been reared up by means of numerous puerile extravagancies, collected from different quarters; and with these have been mixed up certain impious rites, partly borrowed from the heathen, and more adapted to some theatrical show than to the dignity of our religion. The first evil here is, that an immense number of ceremonies, which God had by his authority abrogated, once for all, have been again revived. The next evil is that, while ceremonies ought to be living exercises of piety, men are vainly occupied with numbers of them that are both frivolous and useless. But by far the most deadly evil of all is, that after men have thus mocked God with ceremonies of one kind or other, they think they have fulfillled their duty as admirably as if these ceremonies included in them the whole essence of piety and divine worship.”
This applies to Saddleback and St. Whoever’s.
LikeLike
I cannot handle moderated sites. If I go back to CTC someone slap me. Going from the wilds of Old Life where we run around like naked savages all day to the world of CTC where they sit around like refined dandies is too much culture shock.
Site hosts who have stones are willing to let an adverse comment sit there unanswered for awhile. Bryan seems to be only willing to post them once he has had hours to craft a response. It’s almost as if he’s hiding something…
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
Below you will find the first in a six part dealing with this very issue. Because it is simply to much information to put in a combox, and because this guy is smarter and a better wordsmith than me. I would be interested in your thoughts on it. Because I think it does a thorough job of making a biblical case for the papacy.
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/02/pope-peter-part-i-strengthen-thy.html
LikeLike
Erik, I agree about the M.O.C. conversation. CtC is Bryan’s blog, he’s entitled to demand only certain types of interactions. He happens to choose that type that favors his training, expertise and everyday engagement, but, that’s normal. It’s quite enough for me to understand the points of departure and reasonings for departure or adherence. I’ve read about 8 of his articles and had enough encounters to be sure/confident of why we differ and why our arguments aren’t compelling to one another. I do question and have a better reference for, whether his arguments are even representative of RC charism, either magisterial or laity. I think they are to a degree, and certainly Rome allows for a breadth of diversity to need more than one apologetic, but, they’re not arguments that I necessarily encountered as a cradle, nor are they arguments I hear being made consistently in RC academia. The places I encountered them was first Patrick Madrid, then some in Scott Hahn, now the cabal at CtC. I’m sure there are others, but I find the shared protestant reformed(Hahn was Gordon Conwell I believe) background an interesting twist, and there is certainly a ‘customization’ of their polemic to address those of their background. There’s also a ‘blending’ of pseudo protestant-RC beliefs that quite frankly gets confusing at times. You can be arguing against a Tridentine position and then they can shift gears on you, and you can find yourself arguing against a protestant position unintentionally. That’s in keeping with their statements like; ”keeping all the best aspects of covenant theology, etc.” Their polemic is amorphous, and they’re continuing to update and adapt as they go along. So, you get Tu Quoque I and II or you get Jason trying to argue RC dogma using sola scriptura, all the while willing to beg off the exegesis when it runs counter to his paradigm commitments but simultaneously wanting credit for the effort. Umm, O.K. thanks. The import of that observation would be, if you become converted to their brand of RC, you have a really good chance of entering a local parish that has absolutely no traction with your points of adherence to Rome, except everyone goes to the mass.
The tradition arguments and the inability to be able to tie back dogma to ‘sacred text’ is just a non-starter for me. The claim to AS (apostolic succession) while departing from inscripturated apostolic tradition in violation of Gal 1:8, among many, is a deal killer. There’s no way to bridge that other than putting on their paradigm and leaving yours. That’s doable, but now my authority structure is something other than, even if just in addition to(which is never just the case), than inscripturated apostolic tradition. And once that move is made the doctrinal commitments start diverging. Their principled distinction, as starting point, is; “wouldn’t it have made sense that God would’ve left us with a sole visible church”(sola ecclesia). Well, that move displaces sacred text as means of ultimate authority per the risen Christ and Holy Spirit as paraclete because of scriptures inherent claims to be both inscripturated Logos and Holy Spirit medium by which I’m joined by faith to Christ(2 Tim 3:16). Even the protestant adherence to churchly authority and office subjugates itself, even in interpretive capacity, to perspicuity and authority of scripture. Rome has no such lever for the laity or necessity of reconciliation to sacred text with their ‘three-legged’ stool. How do I strike that bargain and remain in fealty to the cult/church of scripture? So, I don’t see anyway to have ecumenical dialogue outside of affirming the boundaries of our communions and finding common cause in temporal efforts when and if appropriate. Don’t mean to lecture you, I know you know, I’m just fleshing out the thoughts in my mind.
LikeLike
Erik:Going from the wilds of Old Life where we run around like naked savages all day to the world of CTC where they sit around like refined dandies is too much culture shock.
I’d suggest Old Life is about 18 or so of us Piggy’s fending for ourselves against the other side, with our Ralph on occasion stopping by for support.
LikeLike
Robert, it’s a selective infallibility. Evidently, the Bible is always and ever infallible, but the pope is only infallible in certain times and places, the way water is selectively wet. By that token, may we say that Roman logicians are only selectively smart? But maybe better to say sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
LikeLike
@CW, well put with your Calvin quoting; I see your quote and up your ante:
lex orandi lex credendi – how we worship is what we believe.
LikeLike
C-dubs, so what you’re saying is that the one tradition that has something like the RPW should probably have a fourth mark of the church if it really wants to claim Calvinist–right worship. Seconded.
LikeLike
Hi Katy,
Thanks for the comments. We actually did do a year in an LCMS church on our journey before our 6 years in an Anglican Church. My son was baptized in that church. I have a great appreciation for Lutheranism. Ironically, it helped me become Catholic. Luther was right (or much closer to the truth) on Baptism and Communion than the Reformed. Lutherans rightly believe in baptismal regeneration because it is so clearly taught in scripture. And the whole “In, with and under” thing is a lot closer to the truth regarding communion. But I could not find that in scripture. The thing that bugged me about that explanation though, all due respect, was that Luther was quite forceful in defending the real presence “He said this is my body!” contra Calvin and Zwingli. But then he settles for an understanding that could be formulated this way “This is alongside my body”. That is why I find the Catholic believe the most faithful to scripture. Is means is.
I agree that there must be unity of doctrine. However, Lutherans only have unity of doctrine with Lutherans, Presbyterians with Presbyterians, Baptists with Baptists… but even then it is not really the case. The LCMS and Wisconsin Synod do not have unity with the ELCA. The OPC and the PCA do not have unity with the PCUSA. The Southern Baptists do not have unity with the American Baptists.
I guess that is the crux of the biscuit? What does this doctrinal unity look like? What is it supposed to look like.
Thanks for interacting.
Dave
LikeLike
sean, well I got my probs with the MOC being inconsistent or contradictory (and Hahn is a joke) but agree with your second paragraph. Further, the whole idea that roman “history” or the CtC “explanation” of the infallible magisterium is perspicuous, but Scripture isn’t/can’t be is the height of arrogance. These guys have no epistemological basis in order to conduct even a faux ecumenical discussion.
Wait, lies and logomachy is what these guys are all about, missing middle term and all. (If the apostles’ authority is equal to Jesus’ authority, then the authority of those ordained by the apostles is equal to the apostles/Christ. Go figure. As if roman wafers are brain food for idolaters.)
But as soon as Katy realizes this is the innernet version of Lord of the Flies, she’s gonna beat it, as well she should. Likewise since we don’t watch movies we can’t figure out if Piggy is Charter or TVD. To be sure either one of these characters will tell me that is the least of my worries, before the beating commences.
Oh well. Perhaps Bryan will weigh in. (Please hurry, oh infallible one.)
In the peace of preposterous propositions from protestant flavored papists.
Or something like that.
LikeLike
Zrim, thirded. David, I’m no longer so enamored with Terry Johnson but he said one thing that really makes sense: It takes a Reformed bucket to carry Reformed water (doctrine/messge). That bucket is simple, regulated worship.
LikeLike
This why the YRRsters and **formed Baptists are doomed to failure. Their worship is all over the place. Which could be said of certain “thought leader” NAPARCers as well.
LikeLike
Thanks, Dave. Here’s one for Katy (note Luther only reformed doctrine and practice to a “tolerable” level):
“At the time when divine truth lay buried under this vast and dense cloud of darkness; when religion was sullied by so many impious superstitions; when by horrid blasphemies the worship of God was corrupted, and his glory laid prostrate; when by a multitude of perverse opinions, the benefit of redemption was frustrated, and men, intoxicated with a fatal confidence in works, sought salvation anywhere rather than in Christ; when the administration of the sacraments was partly maimed and torn asunder, partly adulterated by the admixture of numerous fictions, and partly profaned by traffickings for gain; when the government of the church had degenerated into mere confusion and devastation; when those who sat in the seat of pastors first did most vital injury to the church by the dissoluteness of their lives, and, secondly, exercised a cruel and most noxious tyranny over souls, by every kind of error, leading men like sheep to the slaughter; then Luther arose, and after him others, who with united counsels sought out means and methods by which religion might be purged from all these defilements, the doctrine of godliness restored to its integrity, and the church raised out of its calamitous into somewhat of a tolerable condition. The same course we are still pursuing in the present day.”
Sorry for the Richard Smithean link of this quote. At least I’m not quoting myself.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 22, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
But Robert, Isn’t one infallible authority or 30,000 sects the only two plausible options?
And that was Thomas More’s argument 500 years ago, when there were still only a relative handful of sects. History has borne him out bigtime: his argument still stands.
LikeLike
If the apostles’ authority is equal to Jesus’ authority, then the authority of those ordained by the apostles is equal to the apostles/Christ. Go figure.
As the Bible “plainly” says
But wait! No it “plainly” doesn’t!
http://biblelight.net/binding.htm
LikeLike
Bob S: Further, the whole idea that roman “history” or the CtC “explanation” of the infallible magisterium is perspicuous, but Scripture isn’t/can’t be is the height of arrogance.
Sean: Yeah it’s a difficult argument for them to make, and then when they went to the perspicuity of people over texts, it just fell flat. It’s not tenable. Particularly when they don’t render ANY infallible interpretation of sacred text, which would be the whole thrust of having extraordinary charism that develops the deposit as interpretation of inscripturated apostolic tradition. It’s just so much ‘principled’ capacity without any realization(freudian wish fulfillment), other than a theological drift in the direction of protestant liberalism but ‘without rupture’. When your charism is Bultmann and protestant German liberalism, I’ll take a pass.
LikeLike
Tom,
I was being facetious.
Rome’s argument sounds very similar to that of communists arguing against free enterprise. “We can’t tolerate the chaos of the marketplace!”
LikeLike
TVD, arguments for churchly authority are not prima facie arguments for RC over protestantism, particularly confessional protestantism. Here, I’ll do CtC for you; subjugated authority is a better paradigm for the relevant data set(scripture) than magisterial apostolic succession. Particularly since the apostles are dead.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
TVD, arguments for churchly authority are not prima facie arguments for RC over protestantism, particularly confessional protestantism.
Didn’t say it did. However, Protestantism’s theological anarchy is an argument against it.
LikeLike
Tom,
Talk a little bit about the practical consequences of “theological anarchy” in the American context.
As I look out my window I don’t see a lot of civil discord arising from the presence of many Protestant sects.
LikeLike
Notice the “ye”? That thing’s plural.
LikeLike
At the end of the day, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, for all its professedly mystical aspects, can be boiled down to this: “You can’t have a united church without having the same home office.” There’s little to no concern in the modern day whether or not everyone reporting to that same home office actually believes the same thing. Go to mass once a week and follow a papal twitter feed and you are maybe going to get to heaven.
I don’t mean to be crass, and I realize that actual Roman Catholic dogma goes far deeper than that. But when that is what 1 billion out of your 1.2 billion communing members actually ends up believing, you have to at least question whether Rome has made religion just a little too difficult.
I still don’t understand why the Callers and others who are more focused on the intricacies of Roman dogma are not calling for the church to do something about the many, many rank heretics. For the life of me, I just can’t get what is so great about infallibility if you don’t have the actual courage to enforce it.
The exegetical and philosophical gymnastics that these people go through seems to put to death their claim that Protestants only join and stay with a denomination insofar as it conforms to their private judgment. CTC and company are clearly trying to conform Rome’s various self-contradictory dictates to whether their private judgment can accept it or not.
I said to one Roman Catholic that there is something seriously, seriously wrong when Nancy Pelosi and Mother Theresa are both members in good standing of the Roman Communion. She told me that someone like Pelosi, who has done so much to promote abortion on demand, is by definition not a member in good standing with Rome. That might be all well and good, but if Pelosi’s bishop isn’t getting that message, why is Rome any better than the PCUSA or ELCA? And what right does the individual Roman Catholic have to make that judgment. If another Roman Catholic disagrees, how am I supposed to know who is right? One would think you should go to the magisterium, which would make my more conservative friend the wrong one.
This whole claim about private judgment and how Protestants are alone and inevitably their own individual final authorities should be laughed at and rejected.
LikeLike
Dave: we actually don’t confess consubstantiation, but a sacramental union that can’t be explained. Some Reformed (no one here, I’m sure) claim Lutherans teach this, but we don’t (or shouldn’t). I think it came from a connection Calvin made between Luther and Scotus (not sure). I’m sorry if you had a pastor who did teach this.
We “do not believe that the body and blood of Christ are locally enclosed in the bread, or are in some way permanently united with it apart from the use of the sacrament …” (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, VII, 14; Tappert)
Don’t teach ubiquity, either
“We reject and condemn as contrary to the Word of God and our simple Christian Creed…that the human nature of Christ is locally extended to every place in heaven and earth” (Ep VIII, The Person of Christ, Antitheses, 10; cf. SD VIII 92).
What did Luther say, rather eat Jesus with a papist than bread and wine with a fanatic? (He didn’t mean Presbyterians, guys…he meant Reformed Baptists.)
Dave, the Roman Catholics don’t have a monopoly on unity, either, as everyone on this site has been saying over and over. I know SSPXers, Institute of Christ the King-ers (who actively deny wine to the laity, and the laity want it that way), the Called to Communion folks (a few in real life), and a lot people involved with People of Praise. But they are all in communion with each other (SSPXer only recently, right?) under the papacy. That’s the unity: the Pope.
Don S: I’ll go back into lurking once my morning sickness subsides in a few weeks. And here you guys thought I was here for the conversation…Just think how much (real) reading I could have accomplished lying on the couch if I hadn’t spent so much time on OL!
Chuckles, er, Chortles: The best book, if you want to know about the Lutheran theology of worship, is Arthur Just’s Heaven on Earth: The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service. Yes, ours was the more conservative reformation, but our practices reflect our theology; we didn’t retain pre-Reformation worship practices just to tolerate them and for the tender consciences of the people. Our worship is indistinct from our soteriology.
Ok, said too much and might regret it. Off to make dinner.
LikeLike
TVD, actually it’s a better argument against Rome since a large thrust of their apologetic is a singular unity, but Rome has anglo-catholics, the CtCers, liberation theologians, the Network, Pope’s kissing the Koran, seminaries teaching Bultmann, the SPXers, nominalists and sort of you, I guess. That they do it all under the same tent at the bazaar just renders it disorderly.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 22, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
TVD, actually it’s a better argument against Rome since a large thrust of their apologetic is a singular unity, but Rome has anglo-catholics, the CtCers, liberation theologians, the Network, Pope’s kissing the Koran, seminaries teaching Bultmann, the SPXers, nominalists and sort of you, I guess. That they do it all under the same tent at the bazaar just renders it disorderly.
Exponentially less fractious than Protestantism, which can have a half-dozen denominations on the same block.
Erik Charter
Posted July 22, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Talk a little bit about the practical consequences of “theological anarchy” in the American context.
As I look out my window I don’t see a lot of civil discord arising from the presence of many Protestant sects.
America is different, true, as SDB noted. It
iswas a Protestant nation, not a “Christian” one. Plus the “American” religions, Mormonsis, JWs, etc.!And although y’all have Peter Leithart halfway booted into the Tiber, he makes a cool Rodney Stark-type analysis here, in the same general zone as you.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/07/church-in-the-metropolis.
LikeLike
Evidently the Old Reader is ahead of the OLTS curve.
We’ll reply anywhoo.
If the apostles’ authority is equal to Jesus’ authority, then the authority of those ordained by the apostles is equal to the apostles/Christ. Go figure.
The Vernonian Disciple replies:
As the Bible “plainly” says
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
But wait! No it “plainly” doesn’t!
http://biblelight.net/binding.htm
I know the distinction between ministerial authority and magisterial doesn’t register in some precincts on the innernet, but we put it out there for those with the God-given discernment trusting that they know who they are.
The real argument or scope is that as long as you bind things as they are bound in heaven, the Lord will justify those decisions in heaven/on judgement day if not sooner.
Not that Rome has heaven wrapped around its little finger with carte blanche to do whatever Rome pleases and heaven is obligated to back it up.
But the scandal of what it appears to say stumbles those from whom the truth is hid.
IOW for starters, image, wafer, Mary and pope worship are not bound in heaven as they are on earth.
LikeLike
K, will have to admit I have never heard of Just’s book on lutheran worship. Perhaps the proprietor of OLTS has or someone else.
From the P&R perspective tho, my money is on Davies’ Worship of the English Puritans.
The RPW and Divine Right of Church Govt. are the watersheds between the respective communions and imo he makes some trenchant remarks on the respective emphases between Luther and Calvin on worship.
cheers
LikeLike
I agree we clearly have (unreconcilable in this world?) differences, I just recommended that book for those who wish to know what Lutherans teach and confess about worship.
LikeLike
Bryan – The use of our knowledge of the Tradition to judge the acts and statements of Catholic clergy or laity does not entail that we are or become our own ultimate interpretive authority, because throughout we remain subject to the authority of the Magisterium.
Erik – So on one hand I have Bryan Cross “using his knowledge…” and on the other hand I have Gary Wills “using his knowledge…”. How am I as a Protestant supposed to know who us using his knowledge correctly? How are your fellow Catholics to know who is using his knowledge correctly? As far as I know you are both Catholics in good standing, eligible to receive communion.
To take it a step further, Nancy Pelosi is also a Catholic in good standing. Why is she not equally qualified to use her knowledge?
(Bryan’s out of the saddle for a week so he may not be able to respond).
I know, I posted another comment. Slap me when you see me.
LikeLike
But Katy, is it from the Lutheran magisterium or ahem, a performative private judgement free lancer?
Seriously will keep the ole eyeball peeled for a copy.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 22, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
Bryan – The use of our knowledge of the Tradition to judge the acts and statements of Catholic clergy or laity does not entail that we are or become our own ultimate interpretive authority, because throughout we remain subject to the authority of the Magisterium.
Erik – So on one hand I have Bryan Cross “using his knowledge…” and on the other hand I have Gary Wills “using his knowledge…”. How am I as a Protestant supposed to know who us using his knowledge correctly? How are your fellow Catholics to know who is using his knowledge correctly? As far as I know you are both Catholics in good standing, eligible to receive communion.
To take it a step further, Nancy Pelosi is also a Catholic in good standing. Why is she not equally qualified to use her knowledge?
(Bryan’s out of the saddle for a week so he may not be able to respond).
I know, I posted another comment. Slap me when you see me.
That’s disingenuous, EC–your statement here shows that you can clearly and plainly tell the difference between Garry Wills/Nancy Pelosi and Bryan Cross!
And BTW, Pelosi was indeed “slapped” by a bishop. In fact, all of them.
http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/about-us/articles-resources/?i=1306
Perhaps you owe Bryan a bit of a–I
dunnodon’t know –“correction” and acknowledgement? [I think your dialogue is going very well, BTW.]LikeLike
Tom,
So will Pelosi have any consequences for defying her bishop? Like not receiving communion? Do we have the right to expect Christ’s one and only church to police her own? If not, why would I want to join them?
And If I want to follow Wills why shouldn’t I be able to? He’s been a Catholic a lot longer than Cross and looks to be in good standing. It appears that the Callers’ take on the faith is not the only one out there. And then there are the people who are to the right of them…
LikeLike
Careful, frau Katy, Chuckles is my ill-tempered half brother.
LikeLike
Tater clarifies this whole indulgences via Twitter thing. It’s all motivated by Pope Francis’ concern for the poor. Plane tickets to and hotel accommodations in Rio for my kids would be a stretch for me with a six figure income. I feel good that I qualify as the poor!
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/07/twitter-world-youth-day-and-indulgences/#comment-53575
LikeLike
Robert, you’ve made this Pelsoi point at various times and in various places. Are you saying that Rome has a political test for orthodoxy that necessarily excludes a Pelosi but since she is not there is disconcerting contradiction, or are you saying that there is a universal political test for Christian piety and Rome doesn’t follow it which should be disconcerting?
LikeLike
Thanks, Katy, for the acknowledgement. Feel free to enlighten me (or not) about that hymn. Its a part of the OPC hymnal (called out Trinity Hymnal). I wouldn’t say it’s a favorite, but I’ve not determined a problem with it, yet. No worries, just curious.
Welcome to Oldlife,
AB
LikeLike
Zrim,
I don’t know if I follow your question exactly, so here is my best answer.
Roman Catholicism says abortion is a mortal sin.
Nancy Pelosi enthusiastically supports abortion both personally and politically, and has the power to increase its prevalence around the globe.
Nancy Pelosi is complicit in mortal sin.
Therefore, Nancy Pelosi should be disciplined up to being barred from the Eucharist.
Nancy Pelosi is not being disciplined and remains in good standing with her church, therefore either Rome does not really care about abortion, doesn’t really consider it a mortal sin, doesn’t care about its parishioners’ souls, does not care about Roman Catholic unity on this issue, ignores Pelosi because she’s a Roman Catholic in power and has money, or some combination of the above. Basically, what I am saying is that the failure to discipline at best renders infallibility questionable.
More broadly speaking, I expect ecclesiastical bodies to actually hold members accountable to their doctrines. I realize the issues are complex, and I’m not really talking about political allegiances. Conceivably, one could be a good Christian and be Democrat or Republican. I would say that one could not be a good Christian and a politician who enthusiastically funnels taxpayer money to underwrite abortion, writes laws that make it easy to get an abortion on demand, promote international policies that encourage abortion on demand, and everything else one might associate with the Planned Parenthood Lobby. So, based on what the OPC and PCA have said on abortion, I would expect their local congregations to discipline Obama, Pelosi, or even any Republican leader who enthusiastically supports abortion and promotes it in their political office if said leader was a member of that denomination.
IOW, if abortion on demand is murder, discipline is called for when those in power promote it because they are promoting murder and not because of their political party or affiliation.
LikeLike
Wow, great day at old life, ladies and gents. I still haven’t caught up to all the comboxes yet, working on it.
Where do I begin to start saying what I’ve appreciated here? Who would have thought my first day of 18 holes in over a year would mean I could come home to such good combox reading? I guess I just need to get out and golf more, that does the trick.
Cheerio!
PS c-dubs, the hat is spectacular!
LikeLike
I guess, I should golf more, or I should post more Machen. Inspirational guy, that JG…
Or both.
Later.
LikeLike
AB: I was just joking around with the hymn. We have 2-3 Trinity hymnals around here (one baptist edition, I think.) My husband would say there’s a disproportionate amount of Methodist-y hymns in there, but I couldn’t say.
Dave H., regarding the sacrament of the altar, I should clarify and say yes, IS means IS–not becomes, which is what transubstantiation teaches.
Chortles, rereading all your comments about worship, I can say I agree with you 100%–Reformed buckets carry Reformed water, etc. Faithful pastors in the LCMS have been fighting this battle for over 20 years (with Lutheran buckets and water, though). A service with Pentecostal practices will teach Pentecostal theology, etc., and get the American flag out of the chancel already (maybe you all don’t have that problem. Do you have chancels?)
LikeLike
Cool, thanks for confirming that, Katy. I figured as such.
I appreciate your contributions here, which I find encouraging.
Best to you and to your family, especially during this exciting time, for you all
LikeLike
Tom, “sect”? There you go doing theology again.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 22, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink
Tom, “sect”? There you go doing theology again.
Actually, Darryl, theological history, and quite ably.
Tom Van Dyke
Posted July 22, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
Erik Charter
Posted July 22, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
“But Robert, Isn’t one infallible authority or 30,000 sects the only two plausible options?”
And that was Thomas More’s argument 500 years ago, when there were still only a relative handful of sects. History has borne him out bigtime: his argument still stands.
LikeLike
Katy, chancels are an invasive species for Presbyterians. The came in towards the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century when most American mainline churches — north and south — sought the respective veneer of Anglicanism. It was part cultural, part bad theology…like most things. Many churches which had had a pulpit in the center and no choir ended up with the split chancel and two platoons of robed caterwaulers. That’s when the flags came in, too. DGH might tell you it was the result of anti-immigrant/pro-WASP feeling.
LikeLike
“respectable veneer”
LikeLike
Tom, I thought theological history was beneath you. But if your use of sect is accurate, you are a sect (unless you’re a really bad Roman Catholic).
LikeLike
Robert, so both. The RCC has a political test for church membership, as it should, but it is not consistently applying that test in the case of Pelosi, and this undermines its claims to infallibility.
But if a P&R church wanted to maintain Christian liberty and refrained from setting a political test for church membership, would you think this undermines its claim to being a true church?
LikeLike
Some Cathlick guy, Tom…
“We must argue”
“CREEDS must disagree: it is the whole fun of the thing. If I think the universe is triangular, and you think it is square, there cannot be room for two universes. We may argue politely, we may argue humanely, we may argue with great mutual benefit; but, obviously, we must argue. Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent’s faith is to say I must not discuss it . . . It is absurd to have a discussion on Comparative Religions if you don’t compare them.”
~G.K. Chesterton: “Illustrated London News,” 10/10/08.
LikeLike
Wish we had someone with even .01% of the wisdom, wit, and heart of Chesterton to carry an argument against our Reformed faith on the board (or in the world today).
LikeLike
Zrim,
I guess I don’t understand your question exactly. I’m not really talking about political allegiance. In some ways I’m talking about vocation. I would ultimately see a church as a false church if it knows that one of its members is an abortionist who runs a clinic that provides abortion on demand and refuses enact the discipline process. Nancy Pelosi is effectively an abortionist even though she does not actually practice it herself, so if she were in the OPC or PCA, I would expect her to be disciplined since as far as I am aware, both of those communions view abortion on demand as a form of murder. If she were a Republican, Libertarian, or any other political animal, I would say the same thing.
I realize the political process is messy, and I am by no means a theonomist. And while I appreciate many emphases of the 2K view as understood and promoted here, I don’t really line up with that either. I would say that the church should do the job of the church and the state should do the job of the state, but I would also acknowledge that knowing where to draw the line between the two entities can be difficult at times.
In my mind, it is one thing to be a Democrat (or Republican) and voting for a bill that has things in it that trouble one’s conscience because the bill, overall, may promote the common good. It is quite another to be a cheerleader and fundraiser for Planned Parenthood and the unrestricted access to abortion. Pelosi is the latter. She could be a Democrat and not do those things. She could be a good Christian and a Democrat and not do those things. At least on paper, one doesn’t have to be pro-abortion to be a Democrat (though the ideological divide between the parties has become so deep and extreme that it would be hard to be nominated and elected on the national level as a pro-life Democrat). I just don’t see how one can be a Democrat (or Republican) legislator and enthusiastically work to expand access to abortion and be a good Christian at the same time.
(For the sake of showing my attempt to be consistent, I didn’t vote for Romney and that is because I see him as in effect no less pro-abortion than Pelosi or Obama, given his record and the fact that he didn’t become “pro-life” until he wanted to get the Republican nomination. But I don’t think one is a bad Christian if one voted for him. The issue wasn’t religious for me at all. If he was truly and believably pro-life even though he is a Mormon, I could have voted for him. Same is true of Obama. If he was truly and believably pro-life, I could have voted for him.)
There should be no religious test for office. If the atheist has the most sensible views and does not actively promote anti-Christian views, I would vote for him over the evangelical who is not a competent leader. Generally speaking, I choose my political leaders the same way I choose my doctors—I go to the best trained and equipped.
LikeLike
Robert, thanks. You say:
“In some ways I’m talking about vocation. I would ultimately see a church as a false church if it knows that one of its members is an abortionist who runs a clinic that provides abortion on demand and refuses enact the discipline process.”
Agreed. But…
“Nancy Pelosi is effectively an abortionist even though she does not actually practice it herself…”
Huh? How can someone effectively be something she doesn’t practice either in her own body or provide with her own hands?
LikeLike
Zrim,
She raises money for Planned Parenthood and has been one of the most vocal advocates for abortion on demand, and she has the power to encourage, promote, and make easily acceptable abortion on demand both nationally and internationally. Perhaps “effectively an abortionist” is not the best way to say it, but she is morally complicit in the act.
Again, she doesn’t have to do any of this. She’s choosing to wield her power in this way. We’re not talking about somebody buying food from a grocery chain that at its higher levels may be donating some corporate funds to PP. I don’t like that either, but one has to eat so one has to get food somewhere. My intent is not to have the money I pay for milk go to abortion, so I’m free. It doesn’t matter in regards to my moral complicity what the chain does with my money. Same thing would be true of income taxes, by and large, because they are going into a general pool of funds and my intent is not to fund abortion, nor can I be certain that my dollar will actually be used to that end.
Pelosi acts with the specific intent of making abortion available to all under any circumstances and at any point in the child’s growth and development. She might as well be standing in the abortionists office and passing over the scissors.
LikeLike
Hi Katy,
Dave H., regarding the sacrament of the altar, I should clarify and say yes, IS means IS–not becomes, which is what transubstantiation teaches.
I do not think we would disagree that there is a point in time (the Words of Institution most likely) where the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. All transubstantion does is attempt to help us understand the metaphysics. But is does justice to Jesus words because he said this is my body. He did not say this is near my body – which is essentially why Luther’s explanation is harder to relate to Jesus words.
Best,
Dave
LikeLike
Katy,
we actually don’t confess consubstantiation, but a sacramental union that can’t be explained. Some Reformed (no one here, I’m sure) claim Lutherans teach this, but we don’t (or shouldn’t). I think it came from a connection Calvin made between Luther and Scotus (not sure). I’m sorry if you had a pastor who did teach this.
I agree and that used to get me going (and still does) when I was a Lutheran because it is a misrepresentation of the Lutheran teaching and it also shows a lack of understanding of what the word consubstantiation means. That is why I referred to the “In, with and under” language of the Augsburg Confession which is the Lutheran view of the the mystery.
My pastor was very clear on this from the beginning.
LikeLike
Katy,
Dave, the Roman Catholics don’t have a monopoly on unity, either, as everyone on this site has been saying over and over. I know SSPXers, Institute of Christ the King-ers (who actively deny wine to the laity, and the laity want it that way), the Called to Communion folks (a few in real life), and a lot people involved with People of Praise. But they are all in communion with each other (SSPXer only recently, right?) under the papacy. That’s the unity: the Pope.
Actually, the Church Christ founded does have a monopoly on unity. I am not sure if the SSPXers are are in communion, I will have to look that up – if not they are simply very high church protestants as with other modern schismatics. Called to Communion is just a website with Catholic converts from Reformedom. They are not a religious order or community – which are all just expressions of the one Catholic Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church answers:
814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. “Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions.” The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity “binds everything together in perfect harmony.”But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
– profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
– apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.
816 “The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.”
820 “Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.”Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me.”The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Robert, I’m not so sure. Why can’t Pelosi’s be situated in the category of wisdom instead of morality?
LikeLike
Zrim,
It’s wise to promote abortion on demand, raise money for it, and ensure that you do whatever you can to make sure there are no restrictions on it at any point in the pregnancy?
LikeLike
Robert, no, I’m saying it’s unwise but not necessarily immoral. The point is to suggest that the political corresponds to wisdom, not morality. My worry is that the way you seem to be framing things is how we end up with moralized politics and politicized faith.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Of course, that’s always the danger, and I won’t deny that it is hard to draw lines at times. I just have difficulty seeing how the promotion of killing children could ever be seen as anything but immoral.
LikeLike
“Nancy Pelosi is effectively an abortionist even though she does not actually practice it herself…”
Huh? How can someone effectively be something she doesn’t practice either in her own body or provide with her own hands?
It’s a question of whether that’s formal or material co-operation with evil, as Catholic ethicists call it.
If you’re interested in the tall weeds of it, this is from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, before becoming Pope Benedict:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
So yes, Catholic politicians such as Nancy Pelosi should be being called on the Eucharistic carpet. But things being as they are, prudence would argue against the RCC actively prosecuting wayward Catholics until the molestation scandals die down a bit, say in 50 or 100 years.
_________
*This is a needed clarification in Old Life’s war with the Callers–not every normative church teaching is treated as infallible.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 23, 2013 at 8:04 am | Permalink
Tom, I thought theological history was beneath you. But if your use of sect is accurate, you are a sect (unless you’re a really bad Roman Catholic).
You thought wrong.
LikeLike
TVD, this is part of what I’m interested in. To the extent that Ratzinger’s words reflect official RCC teaching and that a politician like Pelosi goes undisciplined (public finger-waging doesn’t count), it would appear there is disconnect between Roman ecclesiastical theory and praxis. I’m not sure that does as much to undermine claims of infallibility as it does old-fashioned integrity. But why would Protestants who champion Christian liberty and the distinction between spiritual and political want to cheer a consistency that would undermine those things?
LikeLike
TVD: *This is a needed clarification in Old Life’s war with the Callers–not every normative church teaching is treated as infallible.
Sean: Yep, this has been noted. And the parsing of infallibility to wafer thin size in application, such that it has been invoked twice ever, I believe, but then the Callers using it as THE hammer in apologetic and polemic discourse against a ‘skeptical’ protestantism such that they beg off the philosophical discussion as unsustainable, is just so much sleight of hand. Nor does it maintain coherence with a shared messiah and forerunner of the pope(vicar of Christ) who says; ‘let your ‘yes’ be your ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ your ‘no’, particularly when your claiming unique charism for your magisterial interpretation. Zrim has a nice turn on it; ‘it’s like arguing that water is wet, sometimes.
And since the parsing of infallibility is such that it attains no material difference with protestant creedal affirmation and subjugated authority, we prefer the infallibility of inscripturated apostolic tradition and the Holy Spirit if we’re gonna go the route of unique charism as principled distinction WITH a difference.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
TVD, this is part of what I’m interested in. To the extent that Ratzinger’s words reflect official RCC teaching and that a politician like Pelosi goes undisciplined (public finger-waging doesn’t count), it would appear there is disconnect between Roman ecclesiastical theory and praxis. I’m not sure that does as much to undermine claims of infallibility as it does old-fashioned integrity. But why would Protestants who champion Christian liberty and the distinction between spiritual and political want to cheer a consistency that would undermine those things?
Your criticism of the “disconnect between Roman ecclesiastical theory and praxis” is undeniable. OTOH, prudence is a virtue too. “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not,” said Einstein.
Would starting an intramural ecclesiastical war over abortion against the Pelosis be the prudent thing, or would the Church lose whatever minimal traction it already has on the issue? Would it split up families and decimate the Church in America? If so, would that necessarily me a good thing, “we had to destroy the Church to save it?”
And mind, you, you Warrior Children would probably answer, yes. And perhaps you’d be right.
As for the second part of your question
But why would Protestants who champion Christian liberty and the distinction between spiritual and political want to cheer a consistency that would undermine those things?
it seems jumbled to me. Perhaps you could rephrase. As a “radical” 2Ker, what would you do?
I do want to add here that the linked discussion, and here’s another
Click to access CoopEvilChart.pdf
on formal vs. material co-operation with evil is the sort of thing this world needs a lot more of. We have lost our capacity for proper moral reasoning via natural law under a deluge of “rights talk” and radical individualism a.k.a. libertarianism.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 23, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
TVD: *This is a needed clarification in Old Life’s war with the Callers–not every normative church teaching is treated as infallible.
Sean: Yep, this has been noted. And the parsing of infallibility to wafer thin size in application, such that it has been invoked twice ever, I believe, but then the Callers using it as THE hammer in apologetic and polemic discourse against a ‘skeptical’ protestantism such that they beg off the philosophical discussion as unsustainable, is just so much sleight of hand.
I’ve been monitoring the Old Life expedition to Callerdom, although not following it word for word. But if you’re battling over the Eucharist, to Catholics, Anglicans and even Lutherans, it’s a key part of the 2000 years of Christian theology that Reformed have reduced to symbolism*. If they’re hammering you on it, it’s fair under their understanding of what the essentials of Christianity even are–they’re refusing to let you frame the debate in your Reformed terms.
Even if you’re completely right about the 5 Points of Calvinism, if you’re wrong about the Eucharist I’d say the scales tip their way. I don’t see how or why they should conduct the debate any other way.
______
*Or not, I don’t know. This looks interesting.
Click to access Receiving%20Christ%20Better.pdf
In the least, as much as there can be said to be a normative Reformed theology, the Eucharist is nowhere near the big deal it is to the aforementioned Eucharistarian sects.
LikeLike
TVD, I don’t know which discussion you’re following but my criticism is of their apologetic and polemic anchor; ‘principled certainty’. Well, I can see how you got there from Pelosi, O.K. but no, we aren’t debating the sacraments at this point. At least I’m not.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 23, 2013 at 5:31 pm | Permalink
TVD, I don’t know which discussion you’re following but my criticism is of their apologetic and polemic anchor; ‘principled certainty’. Well, I can see how you got there from Pelosi, O.K. but no, we aren’t debating the sacraments at this point. At least I’m not.
My apologies. I was thinking of/reading something else. A good issue sometime, though. The linked article has Scott Clark and others musing the Reformed should give the Lord’s Supper more consideration.
Rereading you more properly, if the Holy Spirit still guides the {RC] Church, then theoretically the HS could guide the Pope to infallibility. As you noted, it’s only been invoked twice, and based on the quotes from Wikipedia
for our lifetimes at least, it’s more an abstract controversy than a pressing one. But the whole RCC justification for itself depends on the continuing and active guidance of the HS, so as an abstract proposition, infalliblity is more a necessary corollary of the RCC/HS truth claim. Without it, the RCC is just another sect among many, just one more set of theological opinions calling itself a “church.”
LikeLike
TVD, the protestant confessions are going to argue a similar reliance upon the ‘illumination’ of the Holy Spirit for understanding, and then further, the Holy Spirit ‘applying’ the redemptive work of Christ, to include saving faith, in order for salvation to be efficacious to you or I. So, I wouldn’t say their position posits a greater reliance on HS guidance. They are reliant on a unique magisterial charism, even infallibility, for distinction from other sects as you noted. So, they want to lay claim to an exclusive(sole visible church) legitimacy and an ultimate authority(infallible charism, at least potentially) in order to differentiate themselves. The infallible(inclusive of exclusive and normative) plank is where they want to have a ‘principled’ break with the ‘skepticism’ and/or alleged ‘solo’ of a subjugated to infallible scripture posture of the protestant(councils may and DO err). So, even as regards ‘normative’ claims they exercise a conciliar posture that requires a commitment to continuity and coherence between ALL conciliar ecclesial documents, e.g. a ‘Tradition’ without error(at least how it’s argued at CtC). How that is effectively distinct from ex-cathedra statements is a canon law question and a head-scratcher looking from the outside in. But, it’s why they argue for a Vat II interpretation that is in harmony with Vat I, and they scapegoat any divergence or ‘rupture’ as the devil and/or the person but not the office or conciliar document. On the conciliar coherence issue they argue; ‘supernaturally enabled faith claim and point of cultic fealty’- “i believe that I might understand’, ‘I believe what the church believes’.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 23, 2013 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
TVD, the protestant confessions are going to argue a similar reliance upon the ‘illumination’ of the Holy Spirit for understanding, and then further, the Holy Spirit ‘applying’ the redemptive work of Christ, to include saving faith, in order for salvation to be efficacious to you or I.
Were I debating, I would attack that proposition, that a self-proclaimed “Reformer” can instead of ‘reforming’ start a new church next door with the same claim to the Gospels and being Christ’s “Church” as described in the NT.
My observations of the rhetoric is the RCC wears the HS on their sleeve but the Confessional religions refer to the HS obliquely. The OPC WCF credits the HS with inspiring the Gospels, but does not claim the HS guides the OPC’s “interpretation”—Protestants to my knowledge claim not to be “interpreting” atall, but reading what the Bible “plainly” says.
OPC WCF
http://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_01
I confess not reading the whole Confession–perhaps the WCF claims elsewhere the HS guides them. [Pls advise.] But as you see here, no such claim is made.
LikeLike
e.g. a ‘Tradition’ without error (at least how it’s argued at CtC)
This is where “debating” the sacred things is to me wrong. Beating the other guy via his making a mistake is meaningless. As they say in chess, play the board, not the player. Beating a mistake-prone player is meh. Play a great game, wins always follow.
There’s nothing wrong in a good-faith discussion in helping your opponent/correspondent to clarify and strengthen his own argument. Then if you can overcome it, you’ll have achieved something closer to truth and less like punking a fool.
LikeLike
TVD, this may help;
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14
If I had ever learned how to copy and paste and keep the font characteristics, I would’ve highlighted the particular sentence in each paragraph.
As to your remark about playing the board I completely agree.
LikeLike
WCF 1.5 is perhaps my favorite paragraph in the confession, and the one Catholic Nick told me what he really thought, over at creedcode. To be fair, it made me find a similar expression amongst the Cats’ catechism. For my money, I’ll take the WCF. Comparing the two documents, I don’t know where to start. Keep going, TVD. We dont mind your questions and opinions (i don’t anyway, it’s not my blog…)
LikeLike
Further, 1.7 is our perspicuity claims. My questions at CtoC about perspicuity was also met with the sound of crickets, or accusation of logical fallacy…they tell me the pope is Catholic too. Who knew..
LikeLike
Tom,
I can’t help but correct the other guy’s spelling errors when I cut and paste his comment.
LikeLike
Tom,
I’ve been thinking about the Eucharist and the entire RCC sacramental and penitential system. In Acts 15 the apostles had a chance to impose the entire Mosaic system on the gentile converts, but chose instead to only put a few, minimal requirements on them (refraining from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood). It’s odd to go from there to where Rome is today.
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking about the Eucharist and the entire RCC sacramental and penitential system
Dude, you got it all wrong. It’s not about thinking, it’s all about experiencing, it’s supra-rational whatever the clones over at CtC are babbling about lately. Implicit faith is what it is, a superior paradigm that trumps all comers.
Now sit back and just go with the flow instead of trying to figure out your mama Roma. She knows what’s best for you and you need to start obeying instead of asking questions, reading the Bible or wanting it – whatever it is – to make sense.
Capiche?
LikeLike
Wait a minute. Am I asking you to use your private judgement to understand me telling you that you can’t understand holy mother church, because she’s infallible and I’m not and neither are you so… never mind.
LikeLike
TVD, what would I do about fellow Christian who holds a political view different from me? I’d meet him on November 2 and vote A when he votes B. What I wouldn’t do is spiritually bully him by suggesting he be disciplined for voting differently from me.
LikeLike
Erik, did you read Littlejohn’s review of Leithart’s last book over at Reformation 21?
“Leithart would seem to prefer, as is fashionable in contemporary political theology, to find the political identity of the church not in insitutional structures but in the Eucharist, defining Christendom as “the civil order’s (often grudging) acceptance of the quasi-civic order of the church in its midst, the acknowledgment of the Eucharist as the sacrificial center of a polity” (63).
Littlejohn: “It is not always clear how Leithart understands the Eucharist to anchor this order. Indeed, we are puzzled to find him lamenting the Reformation as a time when “The church utterly lost its eucharistic center. No longer did the Eucharist function as a locus of union of all nations and peoples.” After all, hadn’t the late medieval church already undermined the “eucharistic center” by its focus on private masses and exclusion of the laity (who only communed maybe once a year, and even then were excluded from the wine)?”
Littlejohn: “The influence of Radical Orthodoxy’s narrative of the Reformation is clear also in Leithart’s claim that in the sixteenth century, “The sacredness of the Eucharist was increasingly co-opted by the state, which demanded absolute, sacrificial loyalty. Kings were quick to seize on the relatively new ideology of holy war” (66). In fact, “holy war” was centuries-old by this time (as Leithart’s own narrative has already revealed), and Luther’s writings display a repudiation of sacralized politics and holy war at the center of his theological agenda.”
mark: This is not my endorsement of Littlejohn, certainly not of his Constantinian mentor Oliver O’Donovan
LikeLike
Mark,
I try to ignore these guys. I did my time in Moscow (via distance ed).
LikeLike
A substantive discussion with Bryan –
Bryan – Erik, (re: #87)
If I misunderstood your statement about the impossibility of certainty, then I apologize. To be clearer in the future, I suggest not saying that there is no such certainty this side of heaven, but rather that we can have no certainty about matters of faith this side of heaven.
As for staying on topic, that is simply my recommendation.
Regarding skepticism, you’ve misunderstood me if you think I applied skepticism “to the truth of Catholic theology.” I did no such thing.
Regarding “flummoxed,” I accept your apology, thanks.
Regarding certainty, you don’t draw out your conclusion (which would be helpful), so I’ll attempt to do it for you. You are attempting to argue that if we can believe we are certain about the truth of x, but then later come to be uncertain about x, and even come to believe that x is false, then we can never be certain about x this side of heaven. That’s similar to the kind of arguments Descartes makes regarding the reliability of our senses. If we can be mistaken in the case of optical illusions or whether we are awake or dreaming, then we can’t be certain about what we are sensing and whether we are awake or dreaming. So you see that your argument against the possibility of certainty in matters of faith, would have the same implication, if sound, regarding all our empirical knowledge. You cannot limit it just to matters of faith. But the rejoinder to your argument is analogous to the rejoinder to Decartes’s. We can distinguish being awake from dreaming. That’s precisely why we have two concepts instead of one. In order for the argument even to get off the ground, it must make use of our awareness of the difference between dreaming and being awake. So it cannot be the case that the fact of there being moments of confusion when it is not clear to us whether we are awake or asleep, or when we think we are awake but are actually dreaming, entails that we can never distinguish with certainty the two states, or know with certainty that we are awake. Our awareness of the distinction is presupposed by the argument itself. If we could not distinguish the two states, we would be unaware of them as distinct, as a fish never knows that it is wet.
Just as optical illusions, mishearing, misunderstanding, and moments in which it is not clear to us whether we are awake or asleep do not entail that we cannot be certain about the empirical world, so, in the same way, there being periods in which we believe some theological claim, and think we are certain about it, but then come to realize that we were wrong about it, does not entail that we cannot come to truth and certainty in matters of faith this side of heaven. Just as there is a phenomenological difference between being awake and dreaming, by which we can distinguish the two, so there is a phenomenological difference between believing a falsehood about x and discovering the truth about x. Otherwise we could never have certainty even on the *heaven* side of heaven.
If you are uncertain about the truth of Reformed theology, or about the truth of Protestant theology in general (since you are uncertain in matters of faith this side of heaven), then the default position, as Trueman acknowledges, is to remain with the Church, and not enter into schism or remain in schism. As I wrote in November of 2009,
Doctrinal skepticism undermines the justification for remaining in schism from the Catholic Church. If a Protestant comes to a point of not knowing with absolute certainty that Trent was wrong, then that person has no more justification for remaining separate. The Church gets the benefit of the doubt in a toss-up. Justification for being separate requires absolute certainty that the Church is wrong. Surely you agree that schism on a whim is an offense to God.
(I wrote something similar in the last paragraph of “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?“) Schism on a whim, or schism on a guess, or schism on a hunch, or schism on a maybe, is simply not justified. One does not slice up the Body of Christ on a maybe. One would have to be absolutely certain that one is right, that the Church is wrong, and that schism from the Church is justified, because one will have to stand before the Bridegroom and give an account for having carved up His Bride into pieces, and for having influenced others to do so as well by one’s actions and example, and because one’s eternal salvation is at stake. As St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Philadelphians in AD 107, “If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” A fortiori such a judgment applies to the one who makes a schism in the Church. I would not want to have to stand before the Lord and answer for having perpetuated schism on the basis of mere uncertain speculation. The stakes are far too high, to possibly commit the sin of schism on the basis of beliefs about which one is uncertain. In short, if you are anything short of absolutely certain about the truth of Reformed (or Protestant) theology, you should return to the Catholic Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Erik –
Bryan,
Thanks for that substantive response.
You say – “Doctrinal skepticism undermines the justification for remaining in schism from the Catholic Church. If a Protestant comes to a point of not knowing with absolute certainty that Trent was wrong, then that person has no more justification for remaining separate. The Church gets the benefit of the doubt in a toss-up. Justification for being separate requires absolute certainty that the Church is wrong. Surely you agree that schism on a whim is an offense to God.”
“Doctrinal skepticism” involves much more than Trent, however. It involves the entire Roman Catholic system of belief beginning with the Church’s belief about the apostleship of Peter being passed on to successor Bishops of Rome. If Peter’s apostleship is not able to be passed on we have no infallible authority and Rome is just one more Christian sect. Trent did not take place for another 1,500 years after the apostles.
I don’t grant that the (Roman Catholic) Church gets the benefit of a toss-up. The church that gets the benefit of a toss-up is the one that best conforms to Scripture. Why? Because Scripture is the place that one becomes convinced of the truth of the resurrection of Christ and the viability of Christianity in the first place.
Embracing Rome primarily entails embracing a particular interpretation of Peter being able to pass on his apostleship.
In other words, you have your faith claim and I have mine, as much as you would like to be able to say otherwise.
And if you’ve changed your mind about the truth of these matters at least twice before (from Pentecostal to Reformed to Catholic) how can we be certain you won’t change it again? I’m not being flippant, but the past is often the best predictor of the future.
As far as my own “uncertainty” about the truth of Reformed theology goes, until I’m convinced on the issue of Peter’s apostleship being able to be passed on, I expect to be less uncertain of the truth of Reformed theology than of Catholic theology because I find the former to be thoroughly biblical while I find the latter to be only partially biblical. If one is 90% certain of one system and 60% certain of another it makes sense to remain with the system that one is more certain of.
I know, “private judgment”, but I just don’t see another way.
LikeLike
Bryan,
I quick note regarding “this side of heaven”. At some point (unless Christ returns) we will all die. Presumably after that we will either (1) no longer have consciousness and decompose (if the Darwinists are correct), or (2) experience some form of Consciousness in the presence of God (if Christians are correct). Now if (2) is correct, I suppose that we may still be in the dark about all of the theological issues about which we argue, but I hope at that point the correct answers to these questions will become more clear to us than they are now. That’s what I mean by “this side of heaven”.
Now I know that under (2) there is also the possibility of consciousness apart from God (i.e. Hell) and of some religion other than Christianity being true, but I’ll set that aside for now.
If you think you have the same knowledge of these issues now that you will have after your death, you are a better man than I. I guess your Catechism has close to 3,000 Q&A’s so maybe you think you do.
LikeLike
Bryan – Where are you getting these? Who told you these, and what authority did they have? I asked you this in comment #58, and you still haven’t answered. What is doing all the work for you is what you are presupposing in approaching the Catholic-Protestant question. And what I am asking you is where you are getting these presuppositions. From yourself? Or from others? If from others, then what authority did they have to stipulate them?
Erik – Scripture and The Reformed Confessions.
Of course you will respond “no authority” and “private judgment”, but you have no better answer for me unless I buy your truth claims about Peter as noted above. Your whole system stands or falls on Peter. I am not sure if you have realized it or not yet, though. This gets me back to my contention that you guys think you have found a panacea for your Protestant doubt, but it hangs on this one assertion about Peter that must be accepted on faith.
LikeLike
Bryan,
You will next point me to the “Motives of Credibility” to attest to the truth of your claims about Peter. If I then point out shortcomings of Peter’s successors, however, you will claim that Popes are only human. So I am supposed to look at ostensibly objective evidence supporting your claims about Peter’s succession but then I can not look at other evidence casting doubt upon your claims?
LikeLike
Its one thing to complain that the Pope reached out to Muslims and sought peace and common ground. Its another thing to take such statements and gestures and suggest that the Pope agreed with Islam or saw no problem with it.
Thankfully, JP2 wrote a bit about Islam and the Koran during his pontificate. Such as, about the Koran:
“Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.
Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.”
-Crossing the Threshhold of Hope
LikeLike
It is fascinating to look at the way Jason and the Callers talk about the glory of infallibility at times. It seems that there is a recognition that whatever you say about it in theory, its existence and workability in practice just isn’t there. Jason, at least, is found of saying such things as, to paraphrase “at least Roman Catholics have a way in principle to discern between divine truth and private opinion.” That is such a weak argument. For one, it denies that Protestants have a principle—the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. For a group that pretends to rely so much on the consensus of the early church, they deny that such could ever happen among the heirs of the Reformation. But just because the Holy Spirit has not yet fostered a consensus to their liking, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Second, it also pretends that there is no consensus among Protestants when the consensus among Protestants is functionally as good as the early church. Protestants may differ on ecclesiology, the nature of baptism, and the Lord’s Supper—all vital and important issues—we’re united on the Trinity, justification by faith alone, the primacy of Christ over an institution and so much more. The early church was no more united on issues such as ecclesiology (not everyone thought the pope was all that, not even the pope) and how Christ is present in the Eucharist than we are today. Protestants even have ecumenical councils at times—such as the International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy.
Third, no one ever answers the question as to why Rome refuses to exercise its infallibility to clear up so many things for Roman Catholics. To my knowledge, two Marian dogmas are the only things that have ever been officially and clearly declared infallible and nothing. Yes, I know that Rome will ascribe infallibility to conciliar judgments, but even then no one really knows which judgments are infallible and which are not. I’ve talked with a Roman Catholic who says papal infallibility is infallible but one of the key arguments on which it is based—that the early church universally recognized the supreme authority of the Roman bishop—is not. Huh? The supporting evidence is wrong but the conclusion is right. Why don’t they just admit that they are either making this up out of thin air or that papal infallibility was a special, unmediated revelation to Vatican I? Because then you could not pretend to have a consistent history.
Fourth, the cynic in me finds it strange that Rome has never produced an infallible list of infallible decrees. It is almost as if they don’t want to say too much lest they have to go back and revise something previously declared infallible…
LikeLike
SP,
But in practice, if the pope affirms that Muslims can get to heaven by invincible ignorance, it means that the redemption supposedly offered in Christ really isn’t that significant. Better to stay at home than to tell some poor Muslim who would have been saved without hearing the message and knowingly denying it. And even so, any Muslim who knows the Koran and believes it must explicitly deny the deity of Christ and His atonement. Hard to imagine how anyone who does that can be saved.
LikeLike
Robert: Third, no one ever answers the question as to why Rome refuses to exercise its infallibility to clear up so many things for Roman Catholics. To my knowledge, two Marian dogmas are the only things that have ever been officially and clearly declared infallible and nothing. Yes, I know that Rome will ascribe infallibility to conciliar judgments, but even then no one really knows which judgments are infallible and which are not. I’ve talked with a Roman Catholic who says papal infallibility is infallible but one of the key arguments on which it is based—that the early church universally recognized the supreme authority of the Roman bishop—is not. Huh? The supporting evidence is wrong but the conclusion is right. Why don’t they just admit that they are either making this up out of thin air or that papal infallibility was a special, unmediated revelation to Vatican I? Because then you could not pretend to have a consistent history.
Fourth, the cynic in me finds it strange that Rome has never produced an infallible list of infallible decrees. It is almost as if they don’t want to say too much lest they have to go back and revise something previously declared infallible…
Sean: Understandable perplexity, but ultimately unjustifiable skepticism by which you might schism from the one true church. The ‘one true church’ being a FAITH claim(reasonable or not) supernaturally enabled- The moat is filled with water and alligators, bridge drawn up, archers to the parapets.
LikeLike
Robert, we could go talk to any number of other RC, even academia and religious, outside the CtC cabal and hear, per Vat II;’ The Church is NOT the heirarchy’ or ‘the heirarchy is NOT the Church’, in fact the laity exercise their own Charism by which they may call the magisterium to repent, even CtC owns that last one. What you can’t EVER justify is breaking rank, without supernaturally enabled certainty by which you find the MOC in error that led to your supernaturally enabled confession that Rome is the One True Church. So, now it’s the holy spigot who changed his mind. It is the very definition of irreconcilable differences.
LikeLike
Its one thing to complain that the Pope reached out to Muslims and sought peace and common ground. Its another thing to take such statements and gestures and suggest that the Pope agreed with Islam or saw no problem with it.
The problem SP, as always in situations like these, is both/and. Rome and most heretics in general will say some very good stuff. Then they will turn around and say the complete opposite. One side will then quote what they agree with and the other, what they take from the discussion and everybody’s unhappy. (It reminds you of the Dims and Repugs almost. I know, I know. Repeat after me “I believe in R2K, I believe in . . . ) Somebody then has to do the dirty work, add up all the evidence and then start distinguishing.
As one born and raised in that communion, it wasn’t all bad. Some things stood me in good stead, but the real problem ultimately was that Rome appeals to herself and not Scripture, for whatever good things she does say.
Even when she’s quoting Scripture, she boasts she’s the one to determine the canon in the first place.
IOW the old “the church comes before the regenerating word that makes it the church” fallacy.
Call it what you will, raw and rank pelagianism, a holy hubris or whatever.
The natural (religious) man ascribes to himself what only God can bestow and not only that, woe be unto those who disagree. At least for awhile. If we can’t scare them back into the flock by anathemas, we will then try to lure them back by deceptively calling them separated brethren.
Ah, but you have poisoned the ecumenical well, you say.
Not really, only that Rome is so stupefied by her own lies, she can’t remember or even recognize them when they are brought to her attention. Hence the standard shock and hurt feelings of Mr. In the Peace of Bryan Routine over at Called to Communion with creepy Mariolatry and monstrance worship.
You know who I am talking about, the same whom Erik quotes above in his:
I would not want to have to stand before the Lord and answer for having perpetuated schism on the basis of mere uncertain speculation. The stakes are far too high, to possibly commit the sin of schism on the basis of beliefs about which one is uncertain. In short, if you are anything short of absolutely certain about the truth of Reformed (or Protestant) theology, you should return to the Catholic Church.
But Bryan has no qualms at all about standing before the Lord and waving an indulgence or two in order to beg off “purgatory” (found in Book X, Chapter ?, Verse Huh in the Lost Apostolic Oracles and Traditions).
Yes, I said stupefying earlier. Sinfully stupefying and damnably arrogant besides. (Hint:Damnable = hellbound)
We either believe in this one man alone, whom “after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Heb.10:12) or we don’t.
Rome doesn’t, even if she doesn’t believe in Mohammed either.
LikeLike
And we’re not really sure if she believes in Mohammed or not because she has told so many lies before.
LikeLike
Sorry. We’re on a filibuster roll here in anticipation of Reid going nuclear. (Wait, wrong paradigm, let me recalibrate the dials a minute and …….)
This:
I would not want to have to stand before the Lord and answer for having perpetuated schism on the basis of mere uncertain speculation. The stakes are far too high, to possibly commit the sin of schism on the basis of beliefs about which one is uncertain. In short, if you are anything short of absolutely certain about the truth of Reformed (or Protestant) theology, you should return to the Catholic Church.
Dude. Doesn’t. Get. It.
He’s not in the Catholic Church.
He’s in the Roman version/schism from the Catholic Church.
Yes, the Catholic Church to anything but the eye of faith is disorganized and confused, but imagine standing before the Lord and telling him we (Rome) determined what was canonical and what wasn’t, thank you very much, the Holy Spirit to the contrary.
Rome’s bullsh*t is breathtaking in its audacity.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 23, 2013 at 9:41 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I’ve been thinking about the Eucharist and the entire RCC sacramental and penitential system. In Acts 15 the apostles had a chance to impose the entire Mosaic system on the gentile converts, but chose instead to only put a few, minimal requirements on them (refraining from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood). It’s odd to go from there to where Rome is today.
Actually, that decision is cited as proof of a “living” magisterium.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 23, 2013 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
TVD, what would I do about fellow Christian who holds a political view different from me? I’d meet him on November 2 and vote A when he votes B. What I wouldn’t do is spiritually bully him by suggesting he be disciplined for voting differently from me.
Yes, that’s what I thought. That bleaches the controversy out of all content. Very relativist, very anti-natural law. Vote Nazi if you want? Appalling. Formal co-operation with evil is unacceptable.
LikeLike
TVD, since when was it evil to sport a brownshirt and jackboots? But your political demonizing sounds way more American than Christian.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 24, 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
TVD, since when was it evil to sport a brownshirt and jackboots? But your political demonizing sounds way more American than Christian.
I’ll demonize Nazism. We all should. What’s wrong with you? If “American” means being a moral imbecile, well, in a way it sure does…
But if you read my previous links [which of course you didn’t], formal co-operation with evil is the same as evil itself. Here’s a chart for those who don’t like sentences and paragraphs and stuff
Click to access CoopEvilChart.pdf
As we see, it’s simply not “voting” [i.e. Democrat] but actively working for the evil, in this case abortion. It’s not exactly “political” as in partisanship, but in co-operating with evil itself. So work that wrinkle into your R2K instead of just following the dots and we could talk.
LikeLike
Sean: Robert, we could go talk to any number of other RC, even academia and religious, outside the CtC cabal and hear, per Vat II;’ The Church is NOT the heirarchy’ or ‘the heirarchy is NOT the Church’, in fact the laity exercise their own Charism by which they may call the magisterium to repent, even CtC owns that last one. What you can’t EVER justify is breaking rank, without supernaturally enabled certainty by which you find the MOC in error that led to your supernaturally enabled confession that Rome is the One True Church. So, now it’s the holy spigot who changed his mind. It is the very definition of irreconcilable differences.
So, Sean, are you telling me that the only true mortal sin in Roman Catholicism is not abortion, blasphemy, adultery, murder, heresy, etc. but rather leaving the visible body when it fails to repent. I just don’t believe it!!!
LikeLike
Tom – Actually, that decision is cited as proof of a “living” magisterium
Erik – Yeah, I know. Pope Francis was there in Peter’s loins, yada, yada, yada…
LikeLike
Does your skepticism know no bounds, Robert!!!! You protestant! Sins are what they say they are. You know I don’t even remember the whole venial/mortal lists anymore. God is good.
LikeLike
I leave for half a day and we’re talking about Nazis and Doug is back?
LikeLike
TVD, right, and I suppose American jurisprudence since 1973 is a national holocaust, right? But what are you and all the other citizen-Caesar’s doing about it? So much power, so little eradicated.
LikeLike
Sean,
God is good indeed.
They’ve never made an infallible list of mortal sins either, right? Isn’t that pastorally irresponsible? I asked a Roman Catholic about that once, and he said that mortal sins are the major ones. OK. But he didn’t seem to have a problem that Rome hasn’t fully defined what those major ones are.
Seems like it would be a great pastoral help to give the simple laypeople an infallible list of mortal sins so that they can be sure they are confessing the really important things.
Even if one were to grant Rome’s absurd claim to infallibility, how is it possible to view a church that doesn’t discipline people, hires rank heretics to teach at its colleges, and withholds information on what is has taught infallibly as anything other than a complete and total pastoral failure.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 24, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Permalink
TVD, right, and I suppose American jurisprudence since 1973 is a national holocaust, right? But what are you and all the other citizen-Caesar’s doing about it? So much power, so little eradicated.
I’m not sure you even have a point in mind here, Mr. Z: you seem to ping-pong between criticizing the Catholic Church for NOT disciplining Pelosi and then pump your [radical?] Two Kingdoms theology that says the RCC should indeed butt out.
Now you’re mocking the the Church’s impotence and not just the RCC, but all the Manhattan Declaration-ers.
But you know what? You’re wrong. There has indeed been progress against Roe since 1973
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/09/Polls-Show-Marked-Shift-From-Pro-Choice-To-Pro-Life
not to mention the numerous state laws pushing back the limit on late-term abortions, such as in Texas the other day.
No thanks to you. So save your mockery and do-nothingism for God’s approval because I’m not impressed with your theologizing. Frankly, that your train your fire on pro-lifers rather than the pro-abortionists could amount to a “material” co-operation with evil. And until we’re discussing this stuff on that ethical/natural law level rather than per a questionable scriptural interpretation that leads to moral relativism/anarchy, it’s all fideism, where all moral sense and God-given reason are abolished.
Which, if that’s your religion, fine. But let’s drop the talk of natural law and general revelation, because they’re a priori excluded from this discussion.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 23, 2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
TVD, this may help;
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14
If I had ever learned how to copy and paste and keep the font characteristics, I would’ve highlighted the particular sentence in each paragraph.
As to your remark about playing the board I completely agree.
Thx, Sean. We shall play the board. [Thank God.]
The only claim for the Holy Spirit above seems to be personal/individual, not ecclesial. Indeed,”nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men” is simply a thinly-veiled rejection of the RCC’s claim to Tradition.
Bryan Cross’s charge that Protestantism amounts to individual conscience alone–or that the Holy Spirit guides ME but not you—stands unrefuted.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/#comment-53880
LikeLike
Robert
Posted July 24, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
Sean,
God is good indeed.
They’ve never made an infallible list of mortal sins either, right? Isn’t that pastorally irresponsible? I asked a Roman Catholic about that once, and he said that mortal sins are the major ones. OK. But he didn’t seem to have a problem that Rome hasn’t fully defined what those major ones are.
Seems like it would be a great pastoral help to give the simple laypeople an infallible list of mortal sins so that they can be sure they are confessing the really important things.
Even if one were to grant Rome’s absurd claim to infallibility, how is it possible to view a church that doesn’t discipline people, hires rank heretics to teach at its colleges, and withholds information on what is has taught infallibly as anything other than a complete and total pastoral failure.
I’ve heard this one. Mostly you’re complaining they don’t hold to a foolish and suicidal consistency that you can better nail them on. That’s why DGH and other critics love Unam Sanctam and the Inquisition so.
For Protestants, those were the good old days. ;-P
LikeLike
Robert, here’s the great deception about this discussion with prot-catholics, all these guys are still propositional and word-based. RC practice is pageant and priestly mediation. I mean we just stopped doing the mass in Latin 50 years ago, and enough people whined loudly and long enough that they finally brought it back. You want to know how many people understood the latin mass then? Not many. You want to know how many understand it now? Zero, zilch, nada(I’m sure there are two people who do). We don’t even teach it anymore. And quite frankly, it wasn’t important that they did. They were there to receive the sacraments that worked ex opera operato and submit to the priestly charism. Nobody has any business trying to argue canon law or thomistics in a combox. Religious in the Vatican, ground zero for extraordinary charism, have competing views on these issues. This is the same church who resisted putting the bible in the vernacular of their people and were actively engaged in that all the way up to Vat II. That’s why it had to be addressed at Vat II, and given direction for permission and interpretation. We weren’t/aren’t propositionally oriented in our religious expression. And even if one converts through reading an 800 plus page catechism or being convinced of the fideism of the CtC paradigm, you’re going to likely enter a parish who doesn’t have a clue what you’re talking about, haven’t looked at a catechism since CCD classes and going to feed you a rather large and regular diet of priestly mediation, rosaries, candles, pageant and eucharistic veneration. Your thomism can take a hike, or you can get on the internet and hash it out with a bunch of other pin heads. These guys still act, and talk and carry on like protestants.
LikeLike
TVD, the only difference on the personal choice front is whether you wanna stake your soul on harmonizing(faith posture) early church history and the M.O.C. correctly(faith posture and ultimately supernaturally enabled faith claim) or the sacred text. We’re all trying to make sense of ancient texts and claiming the Holy Spirit’s intervention. I’ll take my chances with the group Jesus hand-picked and that both sides agree are the original apostles. The subsequent coherence of Cross’ circle is of little importance to me, if he starts out with a faulty premise/s
LikeLike
TVD, you seem angry. But right again, now I’m in the lifer cross-hairs for not and showing proper political correctness and adding to any opposition moral indignation.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 24, 2013 at 5:48 pm | Permalink
TVD, you seem angry. But right again, now I’m in the lifer cross-hairs for not and showing proper political correctness and adding to any opposition moral indignation.
I’m not angry atall atall, Z, although I’ll confess to being passionate about the great issues of life. Play the board. Co-operation with evil, moral responsibility, natural law. &c.
LikeLike
<isean
Posted July 24, 2013 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
TVD, the only difference on the personal choice front is whether you wanna stake your soul on harmonizing(faith posture) early church history and the M.O.C. correctly(faith posture and ultimately supernaturally enabled faith claim) or the sacred text. We’re all trying to make sense of ancient texts and claiming the Holy Spirit’s intervention. I’ll take my chances with the group Jesus hand-picked and that both sides agree are the original apostles. The subsequent coherence of Cross’ circle is of little importance to me, if he starts out with a faulty premise/s
Cross’s argument is that you’re still accepting a magisterial authority, of those who wrote [or revised] the Westminster or Belgic Confessions. He further argues that the RCC manifestly has a more valid historical connection to those original Apostles; that there was no valid, visible church between Constantine and Luther [or between 100 CE and 1517 CE, whathaveyou] is contradicted by reality.
The only valid “Protestant” claim would be to reform that church, not found another/others. Or to claim that Christ didn’t found a “church” in the way we have come to understand what one is. But your own church claims a continuity to the original WCF, so a visible history is part of your own vocabulary! You don’t start with a new theology every Sunday morning—you have a continuity, a tradition, yourselves. And when an individual is foggy/uncertain on an issue in your Confessions, he usually defers to its wisdom. Tie goes to the church/Confession, no?
Or do you dispute every article from scratch, withholding assent via mental reservation* for some, and holding in limbo anything you can’t affirmatively embrace with 100% wholeheartedness?
If so, that’s really not much of a “confession,” is it?
________________
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_reservation
LikeLike
TVD, I’m gonna be out of pocket for awhile. We never denied that we had a history or tradition. We try hard to lay claim to as much as Augustinian understanding as is reasonable. We claim to be a ‘true’ church based on our adherence to a perspicuous, inspired, apostolic tradition; Gal. 1:8. Rome denies per Trent. ‘Valid’ historical coherence isn’t a matter of succession of persons but cultic fidelity to the Original apostolic word. Jesus founded a church on a set of propositional tennants that were inscripturated per apostolic authority. AS(apostolic succession) of persons is a faith claim and presupposition that even if true would still be required to maintain fidelity with inscripturated text. Rome claims they do but then begs off the exegesis as not perspicuous and subject to the interpretive weight of an previously unwritten but still apostolically autographed ‘tradition’ or deposit. We deny. BTW, we were trying to reform the Roman sect, they booted us at Trent and killed any number of us. Additionaly, our tradition is a subjugated, uninspired one. The only inspired, infallible word is perspicuous sacred text. Gotta go.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 24, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink
TVD, I’m gonna be out of pocket for awhile. We never denied that we had a history or tradition. We try hard to lay claim to as much as Augustinian understanding as is reasonable. We claim to be a ‘true’ church based on our adherence to a perspicuous, inspired, apostolic tradition; Gal. 1:8. Rome denies per Trent. ‘Valid’ historical coherence isn’t a matter of succession of persons but cultic fidelity to the Original apostolic word. Jesus founded a church on a set of propositional tennants that were inscripturated per apostolic authority. AS(apostolic succession) of persons is a faith claim and presupposition that even if true would still be required to maintain fidelity with inscripturated text. Rome claims they do but then begs off the exegesis as not perspicuous and subject to the interpretive weight of an previously unwritten but still apostolically autographed ‘tradition’ or deposit. We deny. BTW, we were trying to reform the Roman sect, they booted us at Trent and killed any number of us. Additionaly, our tradition is a subjugated, uninspired one. The only inspired, infallible word is perspicuous sacred text. Gotta go.
Well, of course the Presbyterians booted J. Gresham Machen out, so he started his own church. It’s not just a papist thing.
You keep claiming that your theology is a “plain” reading of scripture, but leaving the RCC out for a moment, Protestantism is all over the map itself. The larger Bryan Cross [or Thomas More for that matter] counterargument is that Protestants and Protestantism itself is vulnerable to the same criticisms it directs at the Roman Church.
Exc “infallibility,” which Catholics minimize as a rare claim and Protestants attempt to maximize as a general claim to 2000 years of theological perfection, which if it falls short of that perfection [and it did and does], completely delegitimizes and invalidates the RCC’s claim to be the church Christ founded.
LikeLike
Tom, do you, or have you, read the Bible?
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 24, 2013 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
Tom, do you, or have you, read the Bible?
Yes.
LikeLike
Right answer.
Here’s the wrong guy to post in here. You’re not the only one who likes to rile people up ;-P
Later.
I will leave you with a quote from the famous Lutheran Theologian of the 20th century, Rudolf Bultmann’s essay, “The Crisis of Faith,” found in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Rudolph-Bultmann-Making-Modern-Theology/dp/0800634020/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1346791630&sr=8-4&keywords=bultmann
“For Christianity’s love is not something that can be presented by programs, and implemented in organizations. It is rather something which always belongs to the moment, to my particular moment. It is quite true that in regard to particular ills and sufferings of the present, just such a love may demand a program of aid and an organization. Yet love is not exhausted and assured in them. On the contrary, programs, organizations and institutions can actually become a cloak for lovelessness, and can blind me to the real demand ofthe moment, and to the concrete “You” who encounters me. ”
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 24, 2013 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
Right answer.
Here’s the wrong guy to post in here. You’re not the only one who likes to rile people up ;-P
Later.
I will leave you with a quote from the famous Lutheran Theologian of the 20th century, Rudolf Bultmann’s essay, “The Crisis of Faith,” found in this book:
[link]
“For Christianity’s love is not something that can be presented by programs, and implemented in organizations. It is rather something which always belongs to the moment, to my particular moment. It is quite true that in regard to particular ills and sufferings of the present, just such a love may demand a program of aid and an organization. Yet love is not exhausted and assured in them. On the contrary, programs, organizations and institutions can actually become a cloak for lovelessness, and can blind me to the real demand of the moment, and to the concrete “You” who encounters me.”
Very nice. So is the notion of the Church as The Body of Christ. It’s all good.
Acts 20:28 (#1 of 10 Bible Verses about the Church, the Body of Christ)
28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.
Romans 12:3-5
3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.
1 Corinthians 10:31-33
31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God- 33 even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
1 Corinthians 12:12-26
12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
Ephesians 1:18-23
18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
Ephesians 5:25-32 (#5 of 10 Bible Verses about the Church, the Body of Christ)
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church.
Colossians 1:17-20
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Colossians 3:14-16
14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
1 Peter 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Ephesians 2:19-22 (#10 of 10 Bible Verses about the Church, the Body of Christ)
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
http://voices.yahoo.com/10-bible-verses-church-body-christ-4543277.html
LikeLike
PS, after that, I’ve only got Tillich’s “By what Authority” from the religion online website, and Barth’s “the best theology would need no defenders. It would defend itself.” That’s all I can conjure up to rile this crowd, I never read Neibuhr to claim his as a goodie, like Obama does.
All the good quotes in the world doesn’t match what reading the Bible has done, and does for me. You can keep your Roman church. I like mine just fine, and am working to make it better. One errant combox post at a time. Adios.
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 24, 2013 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
PS, after that, I’ve only got Tillich’s “By what Authority” from the religion online website, and Barth’s “the best theology would need no defenders. It would defend itself.” That’s all I can conjure up to rile this crowd, I never read Neibuhr to claim his as a goodie, like Obama does.
All the good quotes in the world doesn’t match what reading the Bible has done, and does for me. You can keep your Roman church. I like mine just fine, and am working to make it better. One errant combox post at a time. Adios.
AB, you’re always one foot out the door of any discussion, yelling back over your shoulder. In fact it’s more like you walk into every room backwards. Hi, I’m here, goodbye! ;-D
LikeLike
Tom, think of me as the opposite of those CTC converts. They just welcomed another into their fold. Soon, they’ll have satellite websites, to accomodate the droves flocking to the mother Church, the cure of all of humanities woes. No, I’m indeed yelling as I run away from all this madness of theology blogs. When I check back in 6 months (or more), you better still be hanging out online with degenerates like us. There’s hope for you yet. Not much, but a little. Take care, dude.
LikeLike
Play the board. Co-operation with evil, moral responsibility, natural law. &c.
TVD, it’s simple–two kingdom theology is prior to pro-life dogma. 2k makes room for competing politics among believers but not theology, pro-lifery makes room for competing theologies among fellow lifers but not politics. Which means that if anybody is “co-operating with evil” it’s the Evangelicals and Catholics Together and Manhattan Declarers.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 24, 2013 at 9:41 pm | Permalink
Play the board. Co-operation with evil, moral responsibility, natural law. &c.
TVD, it’s simple–two kingdom theology is prior to pro-life dogma. 2k makes room for competing politics among believers but not theology, pro-lifery makes room for competing theologies among fellow lifers but not politics. Which means that if anybody is “co-operating with evil” it’s the Evangelicals and Catholics Together and Manhattan Declarers.
Actually, natural law and moral reasoning comes before revelation [which begins circa 2000 BC with Abraham] and thus predates your theology of Two Kingdoms. And that’s the whole point vs. your fideism–right and wrong exist before the first book of the Bible is ever written.
Thus you’re not using “co-operating with evil” correctly. What I’m asking you and y’all to do is examine your moral conscience, inform your conscience, not just email me your pre-packaged theology. To “play the board” we must start fresh, from the beginning, not just replay a familiar endgame.
If you reject natural law and “general revelation,” then fine, that’s your religion. But if you’re open to it [and Romans 2’s acknowledgement of it], then to be in good conscience you must follow where the inquiry leads.
Right and wrong also predate politics, and the City of Man.
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 24, 2013 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
Tom, think of me as the opposite of those CTC converts. They just welcomed another into their fold. Soon, they’ll have satellite websites, to accomodate the droves flocking to the mother Church, the cure of all of humanities woes. No, I’m indeed yelling as I run away from all this madness of theology blogs. When I check back in 6 months (or more), you better still be hanging out online with degenerates like us. There’s hope for you yet. Not much, but a little. Take care, dude.
When you check back in 6 months? That’s what you said a couple of weeks ago and now I see you not just back here but over at the whore of Babylon dot com
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/pope-francis-atheists-and-the-evangelical-spirit/#comment-53907
again with the “Hello, I must be going” bit. Makes one wonder just who protesteth too much. 😉
Peace, brother. Seeya in a few weeks.
LikeLike
sean, you left out the Sacred Heart of
notJesus badges/medallions. They’re right up there with the creepy scapularies. And since I already mentioned monstrance worship, I won[‘t bring up the ostensoriums, since they are the same thing, both of which resemble a stylized Babylonian sunburst with a little window for the wafer to look out. The priest makes sure he holds it with a cloth so as not to soil it with his human monkey paws, (as we say in my family when referring to hands).The only claim for the Holy Spirit above seems to be personal/individual, not ecclesial. Indeed,”nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men” is simply a thinly-veiled rejection of the RCC’s claim to Tradition.
Bryan Cross’s charge that Protestantism amounts to individual conscience alone–or that the Holy Spirit guides ME but not you—stands unrefuted.
Gotta love it. The laughs never quit. The VD, our very own papist pyrrhonist never fails to provide comic relief and gross logical blunders, as per his mentor
In the Peace ofBryanthe DoubleCrosser.The question for the self appointed theological Einsteins barking at large out there in innernet land is just exactly where is this “personal/individual, not ecclesial” claim for the Holy Spirit above to be found?
Could it be a “personal/individual, not ecclesial” lost oral apocryphal grocery list that the pillar dwelling monk Simon the Stylite scribbled on some spare toilet paper and tossed below in a brain fade moment to one of his gofers or what?
IOW not to put too fine a point on it or unnecessarily confuse the in house skepticks, but just what exactly is an ecclesiastical Confession of Faith anyway?
(IOW mebbe if somebody took the splinter out of their own eye of their own understanding – quite possibly a sacred relic from the bones of either Saint Dymphna or Maturinus, which in aggregate are the patron saints for what we would today call the Insane Clown Posse – the discussion might get off the ground. Don’t count on it though.)
Frankly it sounds pretty anabaptist and anarchic to me, which fits right in with Bryan’s Mormon mischaracterization of the sola scriptura paradime (sic), so his “personal/individual, not ecclesial”
private judgementopinion is probably right. You know, the broken clock thing.When Mickey’s big hand is on the . . .
But Twitter is down, my mental reservations on indulgences regarding implicit faith in the social media notwithstanding, so you’ll just have to wait it out on pins and needles, boys and girls.
Sorry about that.
But bring it up next time you tweet Francis.
Gotta go.
LikeLike
TVD, two points; You agree with tu quoque, so do we. Glad you’re on our side of that one. Second, CtC are the one’s arguing principled distinction(not material, as we’ve shown, tu quoque) and arguing error-free coherence of the tradition. Again, glad you see it our way; “which if it falls short of that perfection [and it did and does],” . That wasn’t such a long walk. Welcome home.
LikeLike
Sean,
You’re not convinced by thousands of words from CTC on tu quoque that completely ignore the obvious point that Roman Catholics—at least ones that put any though into it, most lay Roman Catholics don’t care and go through the motions—exercise their private judgment to evaluate church actions, try and make the tradition cohere, and even chose the church initially through their private judgment? What’s wrong with you? 🙂
LikeLike
TVD, what makes you think natural law and general revelation are being rejected and consciences aren’t being examined?
LikeLike
New Bob, are you the Viking’s lovechild? Gotta be some common genetic material between you two.
LikeLike
Robert: What’s wrong with you? 🙂
Me: According to MM I’m uncouth, but he talks about udder cream and bibs in public so who’s he to talk; Tu quoque.
That, and despite Todd’s declarations otherwise, I’m not Trekkie enough to buy the Borg apologetic? That may be my entire problem. It’s either that or my resistance to the Kangol lid accessory.
LikeLike
Sean, the prissies who never indulged back in the day may not understand you but I just put those days back in my head and I understand you just fine. But you’re probably like Frank Zappa, where those chemicals are just there in your brain without indulging. So you don’t need indulgences. Ha! Yeah, that’s it, you’re OL’s Frank Zappa and you’ve left St. Alphonso’s Pancake Breakfast where you stole the margarine.
LikeLike
Muddy, close. I stole the butter from St. Anthony’s pancake dorm. I figure if the priests felt free to inquire about my extra-curricular activities, I was free to help myself. Side note; my wife was just gifted a bunch of pictures from my prepubescent and teen years, including some from St. A’s, from my mom, by way of my sister. The reaction was a combination of fear, interest, excitement and dread. I figure that’s about right.
LikeLike
Your Tax Accountant Can Not Save Your Soul, But He Can Keep You Out of Jail
One thing I was thinking about yesterday re. the need for an “infallible interpreter”. I’m an accountant who does a lot of tax returns every year. Now if you put 100 accountants in a controller position and have them do all of the data entry, make all of the judgment calls required, and file the tax returns for a business you are going to most likely get returns with 100 different bottom lines. This is in the context of only one governing text, mind you — the Internal Revenue Code. In spite of the fact that 100 different accountants would likely come up with 100 different answers, tax returns do get filed each year, businesses continue operating, and company owners manage to stay out of jail for tax evasion. My point – I think your quest for “one infallible interpreter” is overrated. We live with some ambiguity in all areas of life. Why must the church be any different?
LikeLike
Photo in the paper this morning of Pope Francis in Brazil holding a doll. Has it really come down to men in dresses playing with dolls? Don’t tell the Baylys.
LikeLike
Erik, was it a St. Joseph doll? Cuz maybe he’s having a hard time selling his old house and he’s going to bury it upside down in his yard to move things along.
LikeLike
SP, imagine what the first pope would have written about Islam (see 2 Peter 2).
LikeLike
Robert, and if Rome can forgive the temporal aspects of sin, why set up conditions? And if Rome can canonize, why be so stingy with sainthood? Sometimes the principles do work out in practice and it’s not very impressive. But Jason and the Callers have their theory. That should be their first single, “My Theory.” Too Protestant all that first person pronoun business. “Jesus’ Theory.”
LikeLike
Tom – “formal cooperation with evil is unacceptable.”
There you go again, doing theology.
LikeLike
Tom, and Bryan’s defense of Rome stands on his personal interpretation of apostolic succession. He has a theory and he chose Rome over the Eastern Church. It’s Rome’s agreement with his interpretation of church authority that convinced him to put his money on Rome over Antioch. Bryan never tells you that.
LikeLike
TVD, and to add to Sean’s point, Rome left the old church in 1054. The ecumenical councils defined the early church — can you say Nicene Creed — not the papacy. And there goes Rome starting a new communion and adding a phrase to the old creed. How Protestant is that?
LikeLike
What about Ireland?
LikeLike