A constant refrain among Jason and the Callers is the notion that Roman Catholicism has one, holy, catholic, and apostolic interpretive paradigm for reading the past. (Jason has 26 posts in the category of paradigm.) I believe this is supposed to apply to the early church fathers as much as Trent, Vatican I, or the post-Vatican II church. It is, of course, a very flat view of history (and maybe the planet). As a historian, I don’t understand how this paradigm (derived from the magisterium’s dogmatic utterances almost as certainly as the neo-Calvinist w-w follows from neo-Calvinist epistemology) can actually make sense of an institution as vast and old and idiosyncratic as the Roman Catholic Church. But I am especially intrigued by the historiographical ignorance (this is Roman Catholic historiography, mind you) that claims to a single interpretive paradigm require. It is like the Landmark Baptist notion that all other Baptists, except those that trace their lineage directly to the New Testament, are not Baptists and therefore not true churches.
If Jason and the Callers read more history they might understand how far from mainstream Roman Catholic discussions of history their paradigm is. To help them out, a few excerpts from Peter D’Agostino’s important book, Rome in America:
For more than a century before Vatican Council II, American Catholics had been making two claims central to the invention of “American Catholicism.” First, like Pius IX, they demonized a vast spectrum of European liberalisms as evil, Masonic, and linked to secret and criminal forces bent on attaching the Holy Father and destroying the Church. . . . Second, American Catholics insisted that the liberal premises of the U.S. political order were profoundly different from the false, degenerate liberalism of Europe. Normative American liberalism was warm and welcoming, and it granted true liberty to the Catholic Church. In fact, Catholics argued, the natural law principles behind American liberalism and the U.S. Constitution were derived from medieval Catholicism. Both claims shaped Father John Courtney Murray’s classic essays brought together in We Hold These Truths (1960).
A new generation of Catholics who lived through, or vicariously participated in, the enthusiasms of Vatican Council II have reinvented “American Catholicism.” From Murray’s Catholic argument for an American exceptionalism, the new generation made a theological and historical leap to an environmental argument for an American Catholic exceptionalism. The unique American environment of liberty, this new generation of historians and theologians claimed, gave birth to a unique Catholicism in the history of the Church. This American Catholicism was part and parcel of the American landscape, a mainstream denomination, and not . . . a loyal minority religion operating under distinctive premises within the United States. This American Catholicism was a denomination like any Christian denomination, not “the Church.” For Ellis and Murray, it had been self-evident that the Church was a hierarchical, clerical, patriarchal, and international institution (although they might not have used those terms). Their concern had been to demonstrate that the one, holy, apostolic Church founded by Christi thrived legally and loyally within a properly ordered republic. The new generation, in contrast, claimed normative American Catholics was democratic in impulse, congregational in polity, collegial in leadership; a Catholic version of the novos ordo seclorum. (311)
This should sound familiar to Protestants in the United States who made similar intellectual moves by forgetting their European origins, conflating their churches with the American republic, and producing their own American exceptionalism. The odd feature about Roman Catholic American exceptionalism is that these Christians were supposed to be subject to a prince and prelate on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, an attachment that would supposedly undercut investing so much providence in the United States. At the same time, this exceptionalism does help to account first for Rome’s branding of Americanism as a heresy and second for the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” phenomenon where U.S. civil religion has helped Protestants and Roman Catholics forget about their differences.
But D’Agostino believes that this exceptionalism among Roman Catholics has obscured the real tensions between Rome’s antimodernism and the West’s modernization:
The two foundational claims of American Catholic exceptionalism need to be historicized and relativized . . . . First, there was no shortage of anti-Catholicism in the eighteenth century embryonic American nation. The founders, both deists and a broad spectrum of English-speaking Protestants, did not have to seriously contend with Catholicism and surely did not have to protect the new state from the instransigent likes of Pius IX. If they had, anti-Catholic fangs would surely have shown themselves more frequently. Whether or not the American Revolution was a transatlantic religious war between dissenting Protestants and Anglicans (the English approximation of “papists”), it surely drew upon cultural forces that were deeply anti-Catholic. . . .
Second, many European liberals were also liberal Catholics. The moderate advocates of Risorgimento, those men who ruled the Kingdom of Piedmont and then the Kingdom of Italy until 1876, were overwhelmingly Catholic. After they defeated their republican opponents and protected the Church in Italy from a Kulturkampf, they granted privileges to the Church and secured the safety and independence of the pope. Had the papacy cooperated with the Catholic constitutional monarchy and taken the opportunity to reform the Church’s more antiquated structures, forces that were genuinely anti-Catholic might never have won the influence they gained in the decades of the nineteenth century. (314)
In other words, the Vatican dug in against liberalism and moderate constitutional political reforms in nineteenth-century Europe as much as Vatican II made it possible for Jason and the Callers to be spirituality of the church Roman Catholics, indifferent to politics and uncomfortable with past papal pronouncements. Hitching your wagon and paradigm to the papacy means you are in for one roller coaster of a ride.
Old Life 
“congregational in polity”
LikeLike
A–holes: A Theory (2013), Aaron James—The distinguishing features of the a–hole are his entrenched sense of entitlement and his immunization from critique. Add American exceptionalism, and throw in the state of Texas or the city of New York, and this theory has extraordinary explanatory demographic power.
But if the Spurs were not so nice, they would have had that rebound….
LikeLike
If the American empire is “exceptional”, does this mean that Romanists and the Reformed who live in America are especially free to be indifferent about whichever magistrate God has predestined? Or does being “exceptional” mean that we all now have an exceptional duty to make sure that the king is of our persuasion?
I Samuel 8: 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”
Psalm 137 By the waters of Babylon,
there we sat down and wept,
when we remembered Zion.
2 On the willows there
we hung up our lyres.
3 For there our captors
required of us songs,
and our tormentors, mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How shall we sing the Lord’s song
in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand forget its skill!
6 Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy!
7 Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem,
how they said, “Lay it bare, lay it bare,
down to its foundations!”
8 O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
blessed shall he be who repays you
with what you have done to us!
9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!
LikeLike
Hart,
With respect, I feel you need some way to put forward what is the outline of the “mainstream Roman Catholicism” you speak of. If it is not the universal Catholicism of the historic Church, how does it matter how mainstream it is to any of us, Reformed or Catholic. Porn is pretty mainstream in America, even in “Christian” homes, but I think we can all agree that doesn’t mean it should be part of the American Christian ethos. Much less the universal Christian ethics.
Just my two cents,
Michael
LikeLike
Funny you should mention pornography. Seems the RCC has been producing that as well.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/revealed-publisher-owned-by-the-catholic-church-sells-pornography-6257572.html
LikeLike
Remember the scene in the Idiot when someone happens to comment that just before he died, Pavlichev converted to Roman Catholicism (from Russian Orthodoxy). Prince Myskin begins to rant:
“It is an unchristian religion, in the first place!’ the prince resumed in great agitation and with excessive sharpness. ‘That’s in the first place, and secondly, Roman Catholicism is even worse than atheism -Yes, that’s my opinion! Atheism merely preaches a negation, but Catholicism goes further: it preaches a distorted Christ, a Christ calumniated and defamed by it, the opposite of Christ! It preaches Antichrist … Roman Catholicism believes that the Church cannot exist on earth without universal temporal power, and cries: Non possumus! In my opinion, Roman Catholicism isn’t even a religion, but most decidedly a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinated to that idea, beginning with faith. The Pope seized an earthly throne and took up the sword; and since then everything has gone on in the same way, except that they’ve added lies, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition wickedness. They have trifled with the feelings of the people, have bartered it all for money, for base temporal power. And isn’t this the teaching of Antichrist? Isn’t it clear that atheism had to come from them?….
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Idiot
LikeLike
Michael, mainstream is a question that Jason and the Callers need to ponder more than I do. They are doing the calling. Are the calling to Rome? Which one? Can they even admit that their view or paradigm is not the mainstream one? So far I haven’t seen it. They insist their paradigm is THE PARADIGM. Well, that’s not what I read in a host of books published by mainstream presses, written by mainstream authors who are Roman Catholic, or what I see at websites that have far more of a following than CTC.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Let’s not over complicate. THE Catholic Paradigm is that which is in fidelity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It’s that simple. Gary Wills and a host of other authors who identify as Catholic are in a real sense Protestant insofar as they differ from the Magisterium. I know dozens of Catholics who know nothing of Reformed theology or CtC (nor do they care much) and we don’t have different paradigms. CTC is not a fringe group. It’s a group that seeks to be fully submissive, not dismissive, of ALL that the Holy Catholic Church teaches.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
IMHO mainstream Catholicism is a functionally diversity of conflicting opinion. Far closer to what “mainstream American political philosophy” means that something unified like “PCA theology”. what the mainstream believes. Catholicism is for most (almost all?) Catholics a belief in a nuanced conflicting religion which is far more about culture and rite than doctrine and theology. Catholics thrill at conflicting sources: the bible, the early church fathers, later church teachings, vatican hierarchy, local traditions, local priests… They don’t try and reconcile this as all being perfect truth, but rather delight in the diversity. This diversity is what creates room for Catholic culture in a cooperative way to amalgamates those sources and comes to a set of beliefs.
For Catholics, the hierarchy can be wrong. The bible can be wrong. The local priest can be wrong. But the church is always faithful. The way they logically defend that is by refusing to identify “the church” with any one constituent part. What gets preached on CtC isn’t really Catholicism in any realistic sense. Most obviously, it fundamentally isn’t Catholic. It is a sectarian set of beliefs that can only possibly appeal to rightwingers.
LikeLike
But, Jeremy, you use logocentric arguments to lead one to an insitution that is not logocentric. Then if someone follows your logocentric breadcrumbs, they lead to a bunch of surprises (relics, prominence of Mary, prominence of the saints, etc.) that aren’t logocentric at all. It’s like using geometric proofs to induce someone to take a hit and go to a Grateful Dead concert.
LikeLike
This sounds like a Wiki fail…
From Wikipedia:
“Dr. Hart is an avid photographer and general admirer of cats. He is known to wander ancient ruins, camera at the ready, in pursuit of his furry friends. Upon tracking down one such animal, Hart is known to photograph it, pet it, and name it, all while repeatedly mumbling “I’m feline so happy” to himself.”
LikeLike
@MichaelTX
What DGH keeps insisting you do is discuss the Catholicism of the historic church. That is the church that actually existed on earth and doesn’t exist as a pious fiction on CtC. For example the historic Catholic church 1000-1500 was a strong proponent of state terror as a primary means of evangelism, orthodoxy, orthopraxy… Unquestionably the historical record shows that was Catholic doctrine. Catholicism believed strongly in a theology of Christiandom. Modern Catholic apologists:
a) Don’t want to defend these doctrines
b) Don’t want to admit the church can change their mind about major doctrines that are (or were) considered part of the core deposit of faith
Your religion is not the religion of historic church. And more importantly your religion is not even the religion of the current church. The actual hierarchy and the actual church have different opinions that CtC on many crucial issues. The reason that Cardinal Dolan doesn’t excommunicate Sister Keehan is because he consider small-c catholicism more important than doctrinal conformity. CtC considers doctrinal conformity more important than small-c catholicism. Now mind you the OPC agrees with you on that but the Roman Catholic Church does not.
LikeLike
Hart,
I guess that is the point I what I was saying. Popularity is not the judge of truth. If someone wishes to discern the paradigm of the Catholic Church, the Church not visible members is that source. Visible members ought be learners of the Truth, not makers.
These aren’t the source of Catholic truth claims: “… host of books published by mainstream presses, written by mainstream authors who are Roman Catholic, or what I see at websites…” no matter how popular.
LikeLike
Sorry MichaelTX but no. The opinions of the Catholic church (in an earthly meaningful sense) are whatever the group of people calling themselves Catholics think the opinions of the Catholic church are. If you want them to be some eternal truth connected to Jesus, then that is the doctrine of the invisible church. Catholicism has conversely always argued the church is an incarnate visible body. Reject that and you would be embracing not rejecting one of Protestantism’s primary claims. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/
LikeLike
Hey CD,
Hope all has been good. I’ve been out of the loop for a while.
One thing in your comm that bothers me a bit is that I’m being lumped in with a lot of CTC views which I have no idea about. I don’t read their site often therefore I can’t say what presentations they put forward, especially with a sure degree. I guess my point is I can’t say there view is “the” Catholic view either. But I do know they aren’t the primary source, but neither am I. We all are disciples, so farther down the road than others. But, to be Catholic essentially means that you have a single universal source of truth and it is a revelation not a vote.
Sin is sin in any age, so if it can be show as sin now then in the past is was sin too. But it must be viewed in the history/politialcal context for correct gravity. Guess there is my view of history.
LikeLike
@CD Host (10:38am),
Thanks for your opinion here. We might add CTC is not just a sect, but an INTERNET sect, for it exists no where else, except here on our smartphones. It could be proved no better than their constant appeal to an article that they wrote in 2009 which, by the way they always run to hide behind it, one would think had infallible status for them. “Sola 2009 Bryan Cross,” is what I keep hearing, is what I mean. Of course, I don’t mind them at all. The point right here is that they are showing as reformed protestants, we must keep hammering home the doctrine of Scripture. The longer they want to keep sharing their thoughts, the more we get to read them and hear what Catholics of their bent are thinking. Win win, it seems to me…
Later.
LikeLike
CD,
I’m mainly speaking of the grouping Hart put together, not the Magisterium of the Church. You have a much better chance going to the scriptures alone to get a Catholic view than just taking the pious opinions of random Catholics.
LikeLike
CD,
BTW Catholic theology has a visible and invisible Church too.
LikeLike
Jeremy, and the Protestant paradigm is in fidelity to Holy Scripture, that means Reformed Protestant, right? But somehow I know that Protestantism is divided. CTC hasn’t received the memo (even though its been widely circulated folks like O’Malley, Oakley, D’Agostino, and anyone who writes for National Catholic Review. If those folks aren’t part of the Roman Catholic Church, then you guys really are Landmark Roman Catholics.
LikeLike
Michael, but Jason and the Callers have no more standing in your church than all the people I cite. In fact, several of the historians that wouldn’t recognize Mike L’s “CIP” if it bit them in the host are ordained. So CTC is like their opinion, man. Which makes it exactly what they accuse Protestantism of being, man, just like our opinion.
LikeLike
Hart,
Maybe this question will help. Where do you go to discern the official OPC docrines?
LikeLike
Michael: “Visible members ought be learners of the Truth, not makers.
These aren’t the source of Catholic truth claims: “… host of books published by mainstream presses, written by mainstream authors who are Roman Catholic, or what I see at websites…” no matter how popular.”
Sean: Michael nuance that a bit will you. The charism of the laity and pew practice have long been resource and ground for dogma. The laity have an active role in cultivating doctrine and practice.
LikeLike
I’m not saying the laity have no roll in revealing what the Church believes, just that the laity aren’t the prime source of Truth. They and the Magisterium are receivers of revelation not its makers. The Magisterium has the roll of presenting Truth for the Church which includes the laity. There is lots of Catholic practice that is not Catholic revelation. Help?
LikeLike
D.G.,
As Bryan Cross (and Ray Stamper in the article you linked to) has often pointed out, there is a difference between the Magisterium and Scripture in that Scripture cannot answer clarifying questions to put an end to confusion over doctrine while the Magisterium can. Many Protestants have fidelity to their own interpretation of Scripture, but that only brings more division. Catholics, on the other hand, who are submissive to the Magisterium, are brought into further unity when the Church speaks and provides clarification. This is a fundamental difference. Judge a doctrine by its fruits. The fruit of Sola Scriptura is division while the fruit of believing “ALL” that the Catholic Church teaches is unity.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
“There is lots of Catholic practice that is not Catholic revelation. ”
Sean: Which way are you going with this? Affirmation or problem?
LikeLike
Jeremy, come on. When was the last time the magisterium posted in the comm box at CTC to settle a dispute? Probably the last time the Holy Spirit resolved a controversy in the OPC. Our theory is as good as yours. Both sides have to put a lot of faith in the theory because the reality is not certain or visible — but at least our authority is truly invisible. You guys could actually call the pope. I hope you’re prepared to wait.
LikeLike
Michael, well, I go to our constitution which includes our doctrinal standards and form of govt. etc. Thankfully, those standards affirm Christian liberty, which means that we don’t believe in one IP for all Orthodox Presbyterians. Why all RC’s need one IP is beyond me — but I guess it’s because you have so much diversity and need to account for it somehow.
LikeLike
Darryl: “You guys could actually call the pope. I hope you’re prepared to wait.”
Sean: Call who? You mean the guy who is in no position to judge? It’s like the confessional light at church. Sometimes it’s on sometimes it ain’t. Most of the time it ain’t and when it is, it’s rarely for sure for sure in any sort of CIP helpful way(ex-cathedra).
LikeLike
Darryl, I might just briefly share, that I’ve been in the OPC long enough now to witness how a very serious question about things like confession subscription and animus of our church I was able to see, what I believe, was that liberty you speak highly of, in action. I’m not being very specific, but only to say, we may not have an infallible institution, but God seems able to work with even such as us. It causes me to be thankful, is all. Later.
LikeLike
michael mann: you use logocentric arguments to lead one to an institution that is not logocentric…. they lead to a bunch of surprises (relics, prominence of Mary, prominence of the saints, etc.) that aren’t logocentric at all.
mark. yes, and these crumbs are fatal to your spiritual health. Before they change churches, they need to change gospels. They need to become legal children of God, brothers and sisters of those who are already justified before God.
LikeLike
No doubt AB.
Darryl,
My point is you go to a source with authority to “state” what is within your communion and “state” what is outside it. Not the guy beside you, though he may be a good source. The only way to know is to judge him by the standards. What ever they may be.
LikeLike
Is Jeremy pulling our chains with these platitudes or is he serious? I don’t know which would be worse.
LikeLike
If he’s serious, I’m not surprised that CTC gave him the onerous task of writing the one — one — article addressing the priest abuse scandal (which he mentions briefly, at the end). It was mainly full of warm fuzzies about childhood.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/08/children-and-the-catholic-church/
LikeLike
Michael, do you think the OPC has less clarity than Rome at the moment? When will your church ever have another council to address a doctrinal or ecclesiological matter? We have them every year. And we don’t have a Vatican II saying that people outside the church are inside salvation.
I could go on.
LikeLike
MTX, not sure of your point to DG. But if you think we are hiding something in the OPC, we are not. I’m the kind that likes to ask questions, and the OPC affords me their unequivocal positions. Not infallible, but I’ve been blessed to see where me feet landed 12 years ago or so, in the OPC. Again, thankful.
LikeLike
“Let’s not over complicate. THE Catholic Paradigm is that which is in fidelity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It’s that simple.”
Wow. Simple. Like women, the tax code, quantum physics, the innards of my computer,the Catholic Catechism, and Shaft (no one understands him but his woman).
LikeLike
Look if the PIP(perspicuity) is going to be rendered superfluous as principled distinction because of observable reality: “multiple denominations”( assuming Unity is the overarching impetus/end of christian revelation, it’s not, but just to play along). Then CIP, as principled distinction, gets to be put to the same test of observable reality: unity of Rome, even coherence of era relegated deposits, as capacity for unity and when the laity are exercising charism, they get to be part of the consideration.
Infallibility parsed to within an inch of it’s life and distinguished from authoritative is another question, for canon lawyers not the internet. Conciliar vs. papal authority is yet another. The equanimity of the triumvirate of sacred text, tradition and the magisterium is yet an additional consideration. CtC’s representative interpretive capacity is yet another; I require charter for jurisdictional responsibility and capacity therein. I require the document, and clerical embodiment of priestly charism of same interpretation. That’s all, no biggie. I’ll wait.
LikeLike
Michael, the checks and balances present in a legit NAPARC church are so restricting on those that subscribe and join, that the sudden leap to the RCC makes no sense at all for someone in good standing.
And the mental energy and the time that goes into a layman prepping their being to properly understand and then adopt Reformed theology is immense. It’s not a joke, to be ordained should be exponentially higher. Maybe their Reformed time wasn’t serious to them, that would be a plausible but hurtful answer.
It’s like they just said “to hell with it all” and gleefully walked into the path of an oncoming bus. And that’s why there is such questioning and sometimes animosity occurring.
Just sayin….
LikeLike
Hart,
I think you might be reading more into what I’m saying somehow. All I am saying is that to know what the Catholic Church teaches go to the rightful teachers of the Church, not just popular Catholic sources. I’d do the same with the OPC. Basically, if you wish for clarification on outside the of the visible Catholic unity’s possiblility of union with the one Church, read the Church docs like Lumen Gentium. Don’t necessarily believe every Catholic next door. No matter how popular. Clearer?
AB,
The OPC does just fine with displaying its doctrines. I’m greatful it does.
Blessings in Christ,
Michael
LikeLike
D.G.,
Your a Church History man and I think you know what I’m talking about. For example; the doctrine of the trinity and the two natures of Christ are so specific that it is absurd to think that every Christian group would have come to these formulations on their own by simply using Scripture. We share the same belief about the trinity and the two natures of Christ. I can say that these are infallible dogmas whereas the Protestant cannot say so without compromising on Sola Scriptura. This is hugely problematic! This example demonstrates that historically, the Magisterium’s role in the life of the Church is such that she cannot continue to exist without her guidance. The history of Protestantism demonstrates this reality as well.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Michael, which interpretation of Lumen Gentium? I don’t believe it claims perspicuity for itself.
LikeLike
CW – Wow. Simple. Like women, the tax code, quantum physics, the innards of my computer,the Catholic Catechism, and Shaft (no one understands him but his woman).
Erik – *****
LikeLike
Jeremy – I can say that these are infallible dogmas
Erik – On what grounds? Give me an example of something that the church teaches that are “fallible dogmas” in order to contrast.
LikeLike
Jeremy, the Trinity and Incarnation were settled largely by the Eastern Church without a lot of input from the West. You’re not going to take credit for Nicea and Chalcedon are you? Remember, I am a church history man.
LikeLike
Sean,
Reading through it wasn’t that difficult for me. Have I grasped all of it? No. But I’m only teaching my house, not the whole Church. I’ve got enough for now. God will call me to more when He burdens me with the need.
LikeLike
Just cause it’s a little too vanilla up in here sometimes, a little musical footnote.
LikeLike
Hart,
A bigger question about Nicea and Chalcedon is are they accepted as teaching the truth by the Church or not. What about the rest of them?
LikeLike
“Shaft” is not a bad movie. One of the better Blaxploitation films.
Isaac Hayes’ appearances on “The Rockford Files” (as “Rockfish’s” former prison-mate) were pretty good, too.
LikeLike
@MichaelTX
Hi. Good to see you too. Good point about you being grouped with the CtCers, you are jumping in on their threads on the Catholic side though. Until you explicitly disagree with them on a few things though you will probably end up being grouped. I will try and avoid that though.
That’s not a differentiator between conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants. They both believed in a universal truthful revelation. The difference is regarding how one knows the contents of this revelation. The conservative Catholic position is their is a material church with earthly authorities who perfectly proclaim this truthful revelation. Once it reduced to earthly authorities who imperfectly proclaim this truthful revelation then it is Protestant ecclesiology.
LikeLike
@Jeremy
So what? The fruits of unquestioning obedience to any leader is unity. Heck everyone could agree that I’m right about everything and achieve unity. The fact is that the Catholic Church doesn’t produce unity around its teaching, even among its members. Its members can’t even in practice agree on what its teachings are and what degree of obedience to them is required.
In practice the people in Darryl church are far more unified in their beliefs than the one in yours. If your goal is unity your system doesn’t work either.
LikeLike
Michael, I’ll need to see your priestly charism card that you might have equal footing with those clergy, in communion with the RC who have come to, and teach different conclusions. And assuming you adhere the same lay charism of those more popular than yourself, I’ll require magisterial adjudication decided in your favor. Michael, welcome to the lay world of canon law on the interweb. Poor guy, you’ve walked into a buzz saw here at OL. Pay us no mind we/I just may lump you in and beat you around a bit. I know you practice your own particular adherence.
LikeLike
@Jeremy
What is a creed?
1-Restorationist: An abomination in God’s sight. A corruption of the bible that has the form of godliness while denying the gospel. The first step of apostasy
2-Pentecostal/Adventist: A summary that can be helpful for instruction. But it should be used with care since since dogmatic summaries often undermines the bible and the gifts of the spirit.
3-Evangelical: Statements of belief and summaries of scripture that are reversible in light of new discoveries from scripture.
4-Confessional: Creeds are statements of belief by churches binding on their members.
5-Creedal: Creeds are statements of belief which are absolutely true statements about God, and thus binding on all humankind.
The vast majority of Protestants are at 2-3. No it is not problematic to put them below infallible it is the norm.
LikeLike
Michael, no answering questions with questions.
LikeLike
Not enough cats here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW_-oyAldfo
LikeLike
Still not enough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVjzd320gew
LikeLike
I like the cat who is content to do the treadmill workout with only two paws on the treadmill. That’s kinda what I’m doing when I come home from the gym and immediately grab a beer and some chips.
That first cat might be one you could actually take swimming.
LikeLike
Hart,
Please? 🙂 I thought it might be allowed. The question wasn’t posed to me. I’m just piggybackin.
Sean,
Whenever you are called to that I’m sure you can figure it out.
God has not put the burden on me. I do and study what I’m called to and understand what I need to. I ,by Grace, trust Christ with the rest. I hope you are able to do the same.
LikeLike
Hope everybody has a good evening. I need to tune out.
Blessings,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Jeremy, why is it insufficient to confess confidently the trinitarian faith derived from infallible Scripture but without ascribing a human authored creed infallibility?
LikeLike
Zrim,
In Acts 15 we see a Church with the authority to make judgments that are binding on all believers. This was a brief picture of the Church acting out the authority Jesus gave her. But why should any Christian be expected to submit to someone else’s fallible creed (their opinion)? The way I see it, by maintaining that Scripture alone is infallible the Protestant is forced to give up every other doctrine. He can no longer say that the Trinity is the true nature of God because this requires harmonizing various passages of Scripture with others. It requires interpretation. As soon as anything requires interpretation it is no longer Scripture alone and therefore is no longer infallible. In the PCA circles I use to run in it was often said that this was the “best interpretation in existence”. However, the door was open to doctrines that have long been settled by the Church. The Magisterium is not a group of mean old men. It’s an expression of God’s love for us. We need a Church who has a trustworthy voice (although those in her midst can and often do sin).
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
“But why should any Christian be expected to submit to someone else’s fallible creed (their opinion)? ”
I’m not infallible, yet scripture still commands my wife to submit to me. My fellow Christians are even less infallible than I (ahem), yet we are called to submit to one another. I’m also called to submit to my elders even though they are fallible.
Curious as well that John commends the church at Ephesus for testing those who made claims on apostolic status (which ultimately proved false), Luke commends the Bereans for testing Paul’s claims against scripture, Paul warns the Galatians not to accept a different Gospel even if an apostle or angel delivers it, then there is all that stuff about testing the Spirits. It certainly seems that the Apostles entertained the possibility of subsequent churches being led astray, and the scriptures (apostolic witness) are pointed to as the Christian’s final arbiter of what is true.
Note that falsifiable does not mean false. I think it is fair to say that certain post-biblical formulations that are about as certain as anything can be (apostle’s creed, nicean creed, etc…). Then again, as the old priest said, “In all my study, I’ve only come be certain of two incontrovertible truths: There is a God and he isn’t me.”
LikeLike
Jeremy,
“But why should any Christian be expected to submit to someone else’s fallible creed (their opinion)?”
I mean it when I say (I said this somewhere, some blog) that I wrestled with the infallibility of Scripture. Why should any human be expected to submit to what could be the writings of mere men, only, after all? Why the Bible, and not Homer’s Iliad? I know you may now think me weak for saying this, or have lurking atheism or something. But my point is, I came at where I am from a position of not even wanting to ascribe divinity to Holy Writ. After all, is that not to bring God down to the stuff of our human language? It’s hard to come to terms, is what I mean, with an understanding of divine import on the data in Scripture, and understand God’s condescension, as our Standards flesh out. Now, this was my journey, from fundamentalist upbringing, to liberal protestantism a la Paul Tillich, to a true and full belief in the infallibility of Scripture a la WCF chapter 1. From my perspective, you gain nothing my having a church body with the ability to issue infallible dogma. The Catholic Church thinks they have it right. My church, we slap, think we have it right. God only knows. Cats complain about the prot system and prots complain about the cat system. All the while, you guys act like you are smarter, and I’ve got Machen saying nice things about a priest he worshipped under while doing WWI work in Europe. There is no end to this, andyou guys leave every discussion feeling as though you’ve gained the upper hand. It’s silly and this is nothing but a time waster, and is not promoting real unity or Truth. This type of discussion is not suited for blogs! But where I learned to finally end the discussion with my liberal challengers was to simply reply, to all their copious words, “well, that’s nice, but God says (insert scripture quote)” and then I got back to my kids or my golf game.
Come hang with us pretty good Christians anytime you like. Yeah, were a little risky, ya know, our side says the Nicene creed isn’t infallble. Horror of horrors, I know. For me, the gospel of John seals the deal. The most Christological book and most profound on that topic until the writings of Cyril in the 5th century, in my opinion.
Anyway, carry on and defend your troupe. We’re always here for ya.
AB
LikeLike
PS we don’t “slap.” Typing on a smart phone has its drawbacks..i miss those sometimes.
LikeLike
Jeremy, btw, in Acts 15 we don’t see the pope announcing the results. James not Peter. How’s that primacy working for you?
LikeLike
SDB,
Scripture does not call your wife to submit to everything you teach. Christ never said to you “he who hears you hears me” as he did to the Apostles. If you teach her that Mormonism is the true faith she is actually NOT to submit to you. She must discern what is true and not true. Christ cannot say to the Apostles “he who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16) unless the Apostles (and Catholics believe their successors) were protected from error in the proclamation of Christian truth.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
D.G.,
There was much debate until the Pope soke and settled the matter.
Acts 15:7. Peter ended the debate.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
AB,
I can understand your frustration with the 11:38 post. It can seem like a pointless endeavor at times in the blogs. Especially when your heart is pulled to help others understand what you wholeheartedly believe is the Truth revealed by God. In some situations it is pointless. The problem is we don’t know which situations those are. I assume most folks are seeking to give a answer to the hope they have. What I often run into in discerning to respond to in blog comms is whether the other part of that verse is there. “…to those who ask…” Few folks want an answer. Many just want to be polemical. And you are right, that is “silly and is nothing but a waste of time.” But not everyone is that way and we must, if called to help, be willing to put our face forward to get slapped and then offer the other cheek, if only to save some from our own pride. If we remember how low we are and how high Christ has brought us we can be a help to our brothers in need of Christ’s voice in a fellow pilgrim though this dry land. Even if we are at the moment thinking we are on opposite sides, we may catch a glimpse of the one family of God. Which if we find our way home we will see each other side by side in the one heavenly court of our great God and King, Jesus Christ. There is always hope that more can happen this side of glory.
Peace in Christ friend,
Michael
LikeLike
MTX, thanks. As DGH and JT are making Acts 15 the topic of their discussion, were you and I to continue on the thoughts I have so poorly described here, Romans 14 would be my pick. As I told Jeremy, carry on. Enjoy the learning our world wide inter-web affords us both. Regards, Andrew
LikeLike
PS, or, Michael, if Romans 14 ain’t your thing, take your pick:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?foot=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/XX_fn.html#fn0
Back to my cave…….
LikeLike
But, Jeremy, Paul said that even if he or an angel preached another gospel from the one he delivered then he is to be rejected. So whey does sdb’s wife get to deny him for his Arianism but we don’t get to deny the pope for his semi-Pelagianism?
But the Reformed don’t have any problem with the church making judgments that are binding on all believers. After all, we’re the ones who say that outside the church there is ordinarily no possibility for salvation and from which nobody has a right to separate. You’re the ones who open it up for non-Catholics to gain eternal life. You may have an infallible theory, but our view of the church is higher.
LikeLike
Robert Gundry reviews Christian Smith: As to the ancient Christian creeds, they were forged in response to pervasive interpretive pluralism; and to date they haven’t put a stop to pluralism outside biblicist circles any more than inside them. Nor has a strong teaching office. Not even pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Magisterium have stopped it among theologians, clergy, and lay people of that communion, not to detail disagreements among Roman Catholics on the Magisterium itself.
If both Scripture and tradition are unalterably ambiguous, then, how can “a stronger hermeneutical guide” be judged “consistent with, if not directly derived from, Christian scripture and tradition”? “The larger, longer Christian tradition” with which Smith wants American evangelicals to interact is itself shot through with interpretive pluralism, as he himself says: “church history is replete with multiple credible understandings, interpretations, and conclusions about the Bible’s teachings.”
Gundry: So maybe someone should write a book arguing that pervasive pluralism in biblical interpretation is due to the lingering deleterious effects, even on biblicists, of nonbiblicism. But what do I know? I’m neither a sociologist nor a theologian. Just a biblicist.
Gundry: Smith argues that “scriptural multivocality is a fact that profoundly challenges evangelical biblicism.” But multivocality characterizes also the rule of faith, the gospel contained within Scripture, and the early and ongoing creeds and extrabiblical traditions on which he wants evangelicals to draw
Gundry: Smith outlines the combination of Scottish commonsense realism and Baconian inductivism that’s used by biblicists as a gathering of biblical facts, which are considered self-evidently intelligible; an arranging of them in logical order; and an inferring from them general truths. This method is outdated, says Smith, because the impossibility of complete objectivity makes the meaning of facts at least somewhat less than self-evidently intelligible.
Gundry: Granted this impossibility, but how does Christian Smith himself operate? He gathers a host of facts in the form of biblical passages, interpretations thereof, doctrinal confessions, book titles, slogans on bumper stickers and T-shirts, Internet pronouncements, and sociological surveys. He treats these facts as self-evidently intelligible. He arranges them in a logical order, from the popular to the institutional to the scholarly. He infers from them a general truth that interpretive pluralism pervades biblicism and concludes that this pluralism undermines biblicism. Welcome to Scottish commonsense realism and Baconian inductivism redux.
Gundry: Thanks to Smith they’ve made a comeback. To say so is neither to deny nor to affirm his thesis. It is only to say that he uses the very method he purportedly rejects, as did also John Calvin and others in their individualistic interpretations of Scripture long before the Scotsman Thomas Reid ever lived, even before Sir Francis Bacon lived, and long before the rise of American democratic individualism.
LikeLike
Jeremy, you guys have a tendency to stop your reading when it is convenient. James gets the last word (plus more words) vs. 15-20. Why not your pope?
LikeLike
Zrim,
We could make huge advances if the CTC guys and even Rome would just admit that their theory of infallibility has not worked out well in actual practice.
Call me pragmatic, I guess.
LikeLike
Hart,
Piggybackin again…
James applies it just like my bishop and pastor applies it to his flock. Why can’t that be the Acts interpretation?
LikeLike
Robert, maybe. But then I hear JJS falling back on the nobody’s-perfect-and-never-claimed-to-be stuff. Shifting goal posts and shell games, as in now we’re infallible and have a principle for absolutely solving doctrinal disputes, now we’re not.
The real pragmatic way forward is to have a church which claims infallibility for the purposes of having total unity AND within which there are no doctrinal disputes anywhere. The day that happens maybe I’ll take a swim.
LikeLike
AB,
Romans 14 is good stuff, but it doesn’t exactly get into judging truth. Only judging the non apostic stated and understood actions of an existing brother in your Church. Can’t judge an existing brother in communion with you on the understandings of his heart and we best not act in a way that a weaker brother will run off into sin in his heart over our stronger understanding. Basically, we best seek to know our brothers and lift them up and carry their burdens til then.
LikeLike
PS,
Paul says it all better than me.
Blessings, Michael
LikeLike
Zrim, so does that mean maybe you’ll pray the rosary and see how that works out?
LikeLike
Sean, doubt it. I’m more a Jesus Prayer guy.
LikeLike
Indeed, Zrim.
What galls me is that even CTC and JJS recognize, however implicitly, that the Roman view just doesn’t work. If I have to read “At least Roman Catholics have a way in principle . . . ” one more time.
In principle I could probably fly if I put my mind to it. But don’t hold your breath as to whether I’ll ever do it.
LikeLike
Michael, I THINK I know what you are getting at. My point in last night’s personal reflections to Jeremy was to highlight that in my journey, I’ve been hesitant to ascribe divinity even to Scripture. Asking me to ascribe it to a living man is not how I’m going to resolve any conflicts I am personally struggling with. Maybe I’ve understood you or the doctrine if papal infallibilitu wrong. I wouldn’t write this way to you were I in a catholic chat room. Here at OldLife, I can be unfiltered. Adios.
LikeLike
Michael, isn’t that a question to address to the Roman pontiff? Who are we to interpret the Bible (but James does announce the results if we are trying to read the Bible anachronistically)?
LikeLike
Robert, speaking of galling, they reason about church life the way theos and neos reason about civil life. They look at the imperfections of both and reach for an infallible source respectively, pope for church and Bible for civil. Surprise, people are still involved so all of life continues imperfectly. Back to the drawing board for them both: Bible for church, general revelation for civil. Write it 2k times.
LikeLike
Sorry Hart. I really don’t know why you would think I call the Pope up every morning when I’m reading Scripture. Polemical much? How about answering the question? Question with a question problem?
LikeLike
Hart,
Is the WCF the last word on Scripture since it came after Scripture? What about the OPC website. It came after them both. Anachronistically is not the only factor.
LikeLike
Michael TX: Paul says it all better than me.
Me: You big roman believer in the perspicuity of scripture.
LikeLike
Personally, I take the witness of James and Peter as one. I do not need to divide them. Them worked together as the Church should.
LikeLike
Sean,
I have no problem with basic perspicuity of Scripture. I do have a problem with universal perspicuity of Scripture. I agree with Scripture and the Church on this matter, as I seek to do in all matters.
LikeLike
Michael, I think Wikipedia says, in general, the regional church (presbytery) is where doctrinal matters are settled. My presbytery meets quarterly. If needed, our annual general assembly handles issues that the presbyteries appeal, or that GA wishes to review.
And in case you are wondering, I ran into your discussion partner here at OL while at GA when it was held at St Mary’s college here in the bay area. He’s not just a mere polemicist, IMHO.
Later.
LikeLike
Michael, tell me more about your basic perspicuity and which church you’re agreeing with.
LikeLike
If OL is going to be about cats, here’s the cat;
http://www.freep.com/article/20130827/NEWS01/308270060/big-cat-dead-detroit
LikeLike
I believe you AB, but I usually get polemics hitting me with arguments and fronts instead of sincere interaction. Just my observation. I would be happy for any thing different.
Hart,
I’d also be willing to be wrong in my observation. Forgive me if I am. My observations definitely aren’t infallible.
LikeLike
Sean,
Vatican II – Die Verbum
Para 13
” In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.”
LikeLike
Para 16
“God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. (2) For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, (3) acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it.”
LikeLike
Para 22
” Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful.”
Closing
“Furthermore, editions of the Sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable footnotes, should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.
26. In this way, therefore, through the reading and study of the sacred books “the word of God may spread rapidly and be glorified” (2 Thess. 3:1) and the treasure of revelation, entrusted to the Church, may more and more fill the hearts of men. Just as the life of the Church is strengthened through more frequent celebration of the Eucharistic mystery, similar we may hope for a new stimulus for the life of the Spirit from a growing reverence for the word of God, which “lasts forever.”
Helpful?
LikeLike
Michael, sort of. The perspicuity you’re citing is a renovative one of devotional piety, still mediated through the churchly charism. You talk like this a lot. It’s why we occasionally will point to the marked similarity between devout evangelicals-me and my bible, quiet times, and the devotional piety of RCers and it’s mysticism. That’s the emphasis here- “Just as the life of the Church is strengthened through more frequent celebration of the Eucharistic mystery, similar we may hope for a new stimulus for the life of the Spirit from a growing reverence for the word of God, which “lasts forever.”
We’re talking past each other on this point.
LikeLike
Sean,
Are you saying you don’t think that Dei Verbum is teaching that we should read our Bibles and should basically be able to understand what we read and will grow closer to God and His Truth because of it?
LikeLike
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the correct interpretation of Scripture must come from the teaching officers of the church:
The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.35
LikeLike
Michael I’m saying you can’t line up your idea of perspicuity with WCF I:VII. Nothing controversial there. I actually make good use of the delineation in Vat II as an acknowledgement and corrective of a former posture of Rome towards the scripture. My problem is that Rome, as it is going to do, is going to explicate those exercises in terms of their renovative and ontological import not so much in their objective and/or forensic grounding. Thus the relation to participation in the eucharistic ministry. This ultimately goes to articles of faith on the creation narrative, the fall, and capacity before and after and how that capacity or ‘fitness’ is realized in religious/cultic practice.
LikeLike
AB,
I’m not denying that. Only point out that the Church teaches that the SCriptures are basically understandable and should be read by all people to grow closer to the Truth.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’m not sure where you are going with the cultic bit, but Christ has appointed things for us to do and we ought to understand and do them. They are instituted for our good, not our hurt. Holy Communion is one of them.
Blessings fellas. I need to cut out.
Michael
LikeLike
Exactly, MTX. I’m denying it.
LikeLike
No problem with that AB. Each man must make a choice. I believe scripture teaches there is a authoritative speaking voice of Christ through the Church to settle matter and it will not end. You don’t. Viola… Catholic/NonCatholic.
LikeLike
Sean – The 25-pound Savannah cat, which had drawn increasing media coverage for its imposing size as it roamed an east-side Detroit neighborhood
Erik – How fitting that this was in Detroit.
If only D.G. had known he could have driven over and picked it up. A new playmate for Cordelia.
LikeLike
Keeping us all above board, is all.
LikeLike
Michael TX, oh, it’s only all that stuff about how Rome has the answers for all of Protestants’ interpretive problems. Now it turns out you have the charism. Who knew?
BTW, I did answer your question. James had the last word.
LikeLike
Zrim,
You wrote
Except people have exercised the right to separate – about 30,000 times.
If you were to start a Church in your living room this afternoon with some friends and have them ordain you, and maybe give the denomination a new name, you would have a legit Church from the Reformed perspective so long as that Church preaches the Word, administers the sacraments, and exercises Church discipline (Driscoll’s Mars Hill sort of began this way). When anybody can create a Church in their living room why is it wrong to leave it? If the Church, in its visible and organizational makeup is just a human creation, why should any Christian remain loyal to a particular body? Membership in any particular Church is ultimately based on personal preference for the Reformed Christian. Granted, the Reformed prefer solid preaching, theologically dense hymns, ect, but it’s still personal preference. Catholics believe Jesus himself established the Catholic Church. As God created Eve (Adam’s one visible spouse) from the side of Adam so the visible Church was created with the shed blood from Christ on the cross.
The way I see it Zrim there are only two possibilities. (A) Jesus didn’t really establish a single, visible, Church on earth (B) Jesus did establish one single, visible Church on earth. I’m not sure what the other options would be. If (A) is true Catholicism cannot be true. If (B) is true than a necessary component of any true Church is that it must have divine origins in her visible and organizational foundation.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
MTX, neither the Confession or website claims to have all the answers or the charism. Why do you guys keep trying to judge us by your standards? Why don’t you guys live by your own standards? Ask your bishop (if he’s in fellowship with the one in Rome) how to interpret Acts 15.
LikeLike
MTX, did you take the witness of three simultaneous popes as one. Remember history.
LikeLike
Sean, tragic. Our felines are in morning.
Then they plan to protest at town hall.
LikeLike
Erik, I’d have been tempted. That was a beauty.
LikeLike
Jeremy, Jesus didn’t establish any single church. He didn’t belong to any congregation or diocese. Are you kidding?
He did appoint apostles to establish churches.
You guys are Fundamentalist Roman Catholics. Better Landmarkers.
LikeLike
D.G.,
So which church is he referring to in Matthew 1618? It seems to me that the text is suggesting that he is speaking of one church.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy, does the 30k include the CtCers, because as far as the Reformed are concerned you also have unduly removed yourselves from the church of God, and because of it you do not enjoy separated brethren status.
But it’s a long way from hypotheticals to reality. The Reformed are not in the habit of starting up home churches. And that’s because in a three marks ecclesiology there are plenty of established true churches to join, all of which don’t meet everybody’s personal preferences–I have plenty of quibbles with ours, but obedience and submission are actually much higher on the meter than you seem to presume. You’re conflating a Baptist ecclesiology (wherever two or more are gathered in his name) with a Reformed ecclesiology (three marks). The former is the one that breeds transience and consumerism, the latter rootedness and place. In all your time as a Presbie, don’t you ever recall Baptists suggesting your ecclesiology as a sort of frustrated Catholicism, or did you only run in Bapterian circles?
LikeLike
The 30k only includes Protestants but the count is done in such a way that there are several hundred Western Rite Catholic churches. Catholics seem to like this figure but not the methodology that generates it. Calling it lying propaganda by CtCers is IMHO fair.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2218
LikeLike
Hart,
Here is my post:
James applies it just like my bishop and pastor applies it to his flock. Why can’t that be the Acts interpretation?
Here is the question more clearly:
Peter makes a statement “after much debate.” “…through my mouth the gentiles believed…He[God] made no distinction between us…by faith He purified their hearts… why, are you putting God to the test by placing a..yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?”The speaking goes to Paul and Barnabas to lay out what has been happening. James moves forward in the application of the truth revealed and understood All come together with a authoritative statement to resolve the universal church issue. Then send out authoritative delegates. Can this possibly be an interpretation?
LikeLike
Hart,
Can you inform me on which dogmas of the Catholic faith were proclaimed during the three supposed Pope ordeal? I am aware of it all. Then maybe it would be matter for my studying. To me right now, it is just a very wild thing the Church providentially made it through.
LikeLike
Jeremy, of course, Jesus was speaking to the church at Zurich in those chapters.
Are you kidding? I thought your point was that he was speaking to Peter. Peter is not a church.
LikeLike
MTX, it is an interpretation. But not one that is plausible in arguing for Peter’s primacy. You need non-canonical tradition for that. Oh wait, that came from popes who asserted their primacy. Can you say convenient?
LikeLike
MTX, the church made it through thanks to a council that said it needed to be called regularly and that saying was part of the church’s magisterium which the partner who had his office saved, the papacy, conveniently refused to reconvene. See here.
LikeLike
Thanks Hart,
I’m aware of that.
LikeLike
My point about the Acts 15 interpretation is that it is plausable as a good interpretation of the Scripture. Who decides between my tradition and yours?
LikeLike
D.G.,
The snicker (“are you kidding”?) is not necessary.
Jesus was speaking about founding the Church upon Peter and his confession of Christ. The gates of hell will not prevail against the (singular) Church. But what Church D.G.? I’m asking for a real response without the sarcasm.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Welcome back, Michael. Your church allows people to accept different interpretations of Scripture, right? Your interpretation on the topic you discuss with Darryl is required for where you and your fellow church members are at, however. Because it is central for where you find yourself. But not for him. That’s why he says for you to ask your Pope. Why would you care what Darryl’s opinion is on this matter? Surely, you know what his answers are going to be before you ask? You could press him on a doctrine that’s central to confessional protestantism, and ask him to explain why he must interpret Scritpure in a more narrow way. But you press him on your important doctrine. Self-serving? No need to respond, Andrew
LikeLike
AB, actually that interpretation isn’t “require” for our tradition. But, it most definitely is a reasonable interpretation of the passage and would require some other Scripture to discredit it to maintain the perspicuity required to discredit the primacy of Peter. I don’t find it elsewhere. Actually I find the interpretive weight gets heavier. I hold no bones back, I hope everybody I ever meant moves into the Catholic understanding of Truth, because I believe it to be Christ teaching through the Church. Selfserving? I don’t think so. If I’m wrong I leading folks into error… and God isn’t too happy about things like that. I risk my greater shame before God and men on judgement day. I cast myself on His mercy and ask Him to correct me of any error I hold as true.
LikeLike
Michael, your Rom 14 interpretation means you want to carry Darryl’s burden? I’m still at Romans 14, with all this. I’ll read you more closely tonite, I do tnt know where you are going with this. Regards, Andrew
LikeLike
Sounds fine Andrew. I can’t said with no doubt Darryl or you is my brother in the Faith which Paul is talking about in those passages. But irrelevant to it, I and called to love Him as if he were me. If I were him I would want someone who understands what I do to respectfully challenge what I hold. If what he holds is true he should have no fear for God is with him and nothing can separate us from the love of God revealed in Christ. If he finds himself in error I would hope his error be crushed by truth and he would submit to Him who is Truth. If I find myself wrong how could that be bad for me? Win win situation.
LikeLike
BTW Andrew,
I like how you think. Til tomorrow.
Michael
LikeLike
Jeremy – The gates of hell will not prevail against the (singular) Church.
Erik – When things like the priest sex abuse scandal take place are the gates of hell to be blamed or is it the church shooting itself in the foot? How in good conscience can you require me to be joined to a church that is having to do this?:
Dubuque Archdiocese settles clergy sex abuse cases
DUBUQUE, IA. — The Archdiocese of Dubuque has agreed to pay $5.2 million to 26 people claiming clergy sex abuse.
The Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier reports the out-of-court settlement was announced Wednesday. It’s the fourth settlement in nine years.
Church officials, including Archbishop Michael Jackels and Archbishop Emeritus Jerome Hanus, apologized in a statement to the victims and their families. They expressed hope that the settlement will be supportive.
The cases involve 10 priests and alleged abuse between the 1940s and 1970s. None of the accused clergy work as priests today.
The latest settlement means the archdiocese has paid more than $17 million on more than 80 claims of clergy sex abuse
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Do you come here to attempt to convince us, or because you have to keep convincing yourself?
LikeLike
Zrim,
The pattern I’ve seen with a lot of converts is this one:
1. Protestant becomes frustrated with visible church division
2. Protestant forgets his high doctrine of the visible church if he is Reformed
3. Protestant becomes Roman Catholic
4. Ex-Protestant Roman Catholic says all Protestant ecclesiologies are the same, ignoring the ecclesiology he supposedly once affirmed.
LikeLike
Well, this is where I happen to graze, Michael. See you around.
LikeLike
Erik,
I’m trying to point out some simple statements Jesus made in Scripture about founding a single Church. Nearly 100% of Christians believed in this one, visible Church for the better part of Christian history. It’s not a new fundamentalist belief. Believers use to recite the creed without having to look down and read a little asterisk explaining away “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” part.
You responded to a text where Jesus speaks of the oneness of the Church by pointing out that there are sinners in my Church (you didn’t actually engage the text). We’ve been through this. Where have you heard any Catholic deny or shrug away the wickedness of the sex abuse scandal in the Church? Personally it’s hard to think of anything more heinous than the sin of sexually abusing children. But does the sex abuse scandal somehow nullify the infallibility of the creed? Michael Horton, in a class I took with him at RTS made it clear that the Reformation cannot be justified on the grounds of the sinfulness within the Catholic Church. The Church will always have sinners in her midst. Period. Who are you or I to draw an arbitrary line about how much sin we can handle before we cut ties and recreate the Church? I am sympathetic to your point. I am deeply saddened for the children and families who continue to suffer because of the actions of perverted priests.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
@Jeremy Tate
Well that’s your (private?) interpretation…HA! Seriously though, of course what you are saying is absolutely correct. But of course Paul says the same thing about the Apostles in Galatians, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”.
That doesn’t follow. First, we do have instances of the apostles erring (e.g. Peter). OK, I get that infallibility doesn’t apply to everything they say. They are only “protected from error in the proclamation of Christian truth.” But isn’t that a tautology? I’m infallible too if all that means is that I can’t fail when I’m speaking the truth (especially if I couple that with a robust notion of providence). But that isn’t what you mean either – you mean that it is a priori impossible for the Pope or a council to err when they are speaking on a matter of faith otherwise that snippet from the Gospel of Luke doesn’t meld with your reading of Luke. But this is a strange reading of the text – Jesus was speaking to the 72 he sent out, not the 12 apostles. And he was sending them with a specific message on his behalf. We are after all Royal Ambassadors, indeed a royal priesthood. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t fall into error.
The apostle’s disagreed with your interpretation as well. From Luke commending the Bereans for checking what Paul proclaimed against the scriptures to John commending the church for testing the false apostles to Paul’s statement in Galatians. It seems quite clear that churches (and more specifically her leaders) can fail and her leaders be led astray.
Appeal to the supposed infallibility of the magisterium is kind of like the inerrantists appeal to the inerrant “original manuscripts”. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, but we don’t have them anymore. If the ones we have aren’t inerrant what difference does the status of the originals make. Same with the Magisterium – even if it were infallible, we would need fallible teachers to transmit and interpret it for us. But if my priest utterly dismisses large swaths of that Magisterium what do I do? What do I do if I have to explain to my kid that what Fr. So and so said in his homily wasn’t really consistent with church teaching? Do I go to mass somewhere else? Am I relying on private judgment when I do that? Where else would I turn?
LikeLike
Jeremy – Nearly 100% of Christians believed in this one, visible Church for the better part of Christian history.
Erik – How do you know that? What happened to people who tried to start another Christian church when church and state were united? Hus? Wycliffe?
Jeremy – You responded to a text where Jesus speaks of the oneness of the Church by pointing out that there are sinners in my Church
Erik – “In” as in “members” is different than running the show, isn’t it?
“The latest settlement means the archdiocese has paid more than $17 million on more than 80 claims of clergy sex abuse”
And that’s just one archdiocese. What is the global amount that has been paid out? How much of your money has gone from you to victims with the church being a conduit?
Jeremy – Where have you heard any Catholic deny or shrug away the wickedness of the sex abuse scandal in the Church?
Erik – Only one post at CTC (yours) on the scandal and you only briefly mention it at the end. I need more on how to understand how it can happen in a church with an infallible leader. Why not use the infallibility to discern the perverts and keep them out or kick them out?
Jeremy – But does the sex abuse scandal somehow nullify the infallibility of the creed?
Erik – Now creeds are infallible, too?
Jeremy – Who are you or I to draw an arbitrary line about how much sin we can handle before we cut ties and recreate the Church?
Erik – I will. When a church makes great claims for itself, assumes great power over people’s lives and souls, and then doesn’t back it up, I just don’t buy their claims. Jim Jones did this up to the point that people drank the Kool-Aid. No thanks.
If you want to find the true church, look for the one(s) that teach the gospel taught in Scripture and govern themselves accordingly.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
The problem with your paradigm, and Bryan’s, and Michael’s, and Jason’s, is that you have boxed yourself in. Since your faith is in “the church”, there isn’t really anything that that church could do that you would not be willing to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to accept after the fact. You have no choice. You have put your faith in a succession of men. Who knows what the church will be believing or doing in 50 years. Regardless of what it is, you have to be there with it because you have no choice but that or believing in nothing. You’re trapped — by a bunch of other men.
LikeLike
MTX, certainly you don’t decide. That would make you Protestant.
Look, sure I’m being prickly about this. But this is the corner Jason and the Callers have painted you into. We get dinged for interpreting the Bible apart from tradition or the magisterium. You do it without all that and it’s fine.
Games rigged.
LikeLike
Jeremy, it is the church where Christ is known, that one, the one where undershepherds serve the risen Christ, not the one that needs help from a co-mediatrix.
LikeLike
Jeremy, you wrote: “Nearly 100% of Christians believed in this one, visible Church for the better part of Christian history.”
There the Callers go again making claims they don’t have a clue about. Really, if you want to say Rome has it all over Protestantism because of what she teaches, fine. But don’t say that what Rome is is the way Rome always has been since Christ founded her.
That is Landmarker territory. I thought you were Roman Catholic, not a fundamentalist Baptist.
LikeLike
For those interested in Sean’s quote about the difficulty of converting to Rome, it is from Rod Dreher.
LikeLike
Dropping in for a night cap…
Erik,
To a degree you are right. But you look at it from a different point of view. We understand ourselves to be trapped in the hand of Almighty God who came in the flesh and founded an authoritative teaching Church, which is attested to in the Scriptures and working through the ages. We trust ourselves to the promises of Scripture and the protection of the Spirit.
Think about the Jew who might say to himself previous to the coming of Christ… “Why do I need to be united to this one family? God has promised a savior for the nations not just the children of Israel.” He seeks to divide that portion of humanity God has already brought together. The problem is God has united what he has separated. He takes his family out of the God determined plan for his salvation and rejects God, because the “way” of our salvation is also Him. Erik you have separated what God has joined… the Church and Himself. It is His bride. He didn’t divorce the one people of Israel. He expanded her borders to the ends of the earth through the proclamation of the gospel and the ingrafting of all peoples into the one righteous seed of God born of Israel, Christ. We are born anew by baptism into Him by His Spirit and are one people. Denominations aren’t part of the one Church. They are divorces from the Bridegroom which take a different name.
I will say though, some denomination separated from false brides and became more pure because of it. Yet, there is still a waiting for union with the Bridegroom on the part of some, which is good.
Hope that can even be followed. Blessings, Michael
LikeLike
Hart,
I really appreciate the forum here to interact with everybody. You and I just don’t seem to be interacting very well. Am I wrong? We don’t get anywhere. Is there something I am doing that isn’t helping?
LikeLike
MTX, not really, except that we enter into a conversation and then you retreat into platitudes about tradition, church authority, and other parts of Roman CAtholic assertion. So you don’t mind having a regular conversation about Protestants stuff. But you go CTC on RC stuff. In case you haven’t noticed, CTC drives me batty.
LikeLike
Well I am Catholic. So I will point out the distinctly Catholic aspects that are different from you and others here as I write. That still doesn’t make me Jason or Bryan. I am me. Just Michael from over here in Texas with a family of six.
I guess my biggest concern is:
Are you wanting someone who interacts from a strong Catholic point of view talking with you?
LikeLike
“Where have you heard any Catholic deny or shrug away the wickedness of the sex abuse scandal in the Church? … But does the sex abuse scandal somehow nullify the infallibility of the creed? Who are you or I to draw an arbitrary line about how much sin we can handle before we cut ties and recreate the Church? … I am deeply saddened for the children and families who continue to suffer because of the actions of perverted priests.”
This isn’t the problem per se. Perverts infiltrate any place there are kids: churches, schools, scouts, etc… This isn’t unique to the RCC and isn’t the scandal. The scandal is that bishops and cardinals (and evidently the previous two popes) have been driven to cover up sexual abuse by supposedly infallible beliefs such as the objective good of having more priests and saying more masses.
The particulars of RCC sacramentalism and ecclesiology underlying this doctrine are wrong (according to the priest I linked above, Rahner got in trouble with the CDF for criticizing this). This erroneous doctrine is highlighted by the egregious crimes at best ignored and often actively covered by the hierarchy (including the previous two popes). The doctrinal error on the part of the RCC shows that she is not infallible.
I realize that this doesn’t “prove” that we protestants have it right, but if one’s motivation for renouncing his membership vows to his church and leaving for Rome was a quest for an infallible interpreter of the truth, he’s made a mistake.
LikeLike
I would also add that this limitation of Roman infallibility to faith and morals does not even work according to this limitation. The sex abuse scandal is a perfect example. How is the handing over of abusive priests to the authorities not a matter of faith and morals? How is the cover-up by Ratzinger not a matter of faith and morals? Are you not teaching that such sin is not really that big a deal simply by moving the priests around? I realize that there is no “statement” on this, but why is teaching limited only to doctrinal statements, especially when Scripture views teaching both as propositional content and a matter of providing an example that the sheep can imitate?
LikeLike
MTX, I welcome everyone here, even TVD. What I don’t care for are kinds of arguments and statements that look to the weakness of 2k or Protestantism while advocating something that has its own weaknesses. That is what I think a number of committed RC’s do. In an effort to show the legitimacy of their decision to align with Rome, they become cheerleaders and never pay attention to the score of the game.
LikeLike
@MichaelTX —
The problem is you guys don’t really have any answers. This is going to sound harsh, but you aren’t really interacting. Like DGH said, you are stating easily refutable platitudes and then changing the subject when someone points out the problems.
Let’s take an example where Jeremy put meat on the bones of your claim about one church “ Nearly 100% of Christians believed in this one, visible Church for the better part of Christian history”
Now that’s just false.
a) We know it wasn’t true during the first 100 BCE – 200 CE.
b) We know there was plenty of controversy 200 CE – 476 CE, nowhere near 100%.
c) In particular it skips Arian Christianity
d) It skips the Christianity of the Eastern Roman Empire
e) It skips Collyridian Christianity which evolved into Islam .
f) It skips the northern European non-Catholic variants i.e. Germanic Christianity (Christ the warrior King)
g) It skips the middle ages rebellions against this church and the enormous evidence we have for folk religion hybrids that existed among middle ages peasantry including non sanctioned religious figures.
Arian Christianity lasted for centuries and was for some of that time the dominant form of Christianity in many countries. Islam to this day controls huge chunks of the planet. These are not minor flaws in the theory. And that list is all prior to the Reformation. I think you can make a fairly good case that huge numbers of people despised the single visible church and wanted to break from it at every opportunity all throughout its history. Far from 100%, I’m not sure that 50% believed in a single unified church.
But even if we ignore the problems in the centuries leading up to the Reformation. It completely fails to even take into account the various groups that supported the Reformation. It makes it seem like Luther walked up to a church one day, nailed his list of complaint up and suddenly millions changed their religious opinion on crucial issues. That approach is blatant obvious nonsense.
A diversified Christianity has always been in the norm, when there has not been substantial state terror to enforce religious uniformity. What happened in the Reformation which does make it unique was three groups of people who had opposed the Catholic norm for disparate reasons agreed to cooperate with one another, even though they disagreed on what the end product would look like. The Reformation was when the opposition unified, not when it came into existence.
And when the issue is raised you can hear the sounds of crickets. If you want to interact, then interact. Let’s deal with reality. If a single unified church was God’s plan, why has the plan worked so horrible through all of Christian history? What has the Catholic church done in the last 500 years that would stop it from being an utter disaster today?
LikeLike
Hart welcoming all is not the same as you personal wishing to here my point of view here. That is my question.
LikeLike
MTX, not speaking for Darryl, but part of the push back you may be getting is you tend to flux between enthusiastic gushes/platitudes, particularly as it engages christian unity, to apologetic arguments you’ve picked up from various RC apologists, some of which is in the same grouping as CtC.
My annoyance with it all, is most of the apologetic devolves down into philosophical abstraction. So, in one moment we’re being told that paradigms are valuable for their explanatory value and the next we’re being told that, “well I know the ‘reality’ and the history don’t bear it out, but it’s still a principled distinction”. Well, which is it? Does the IP(interpretive paradigm) have explanatory value or does it not? Or is the real truth, that it’s(IP) going to be held anyway for it’s apologetic value and for purposes of principled distinction that don’t have a bearing on ‘reality’?
At some point you’re apologetic/polemic/IP has to explain the relevant data, and when it doesn’t you(hypothetical you) can’t continue to insist that the paradigm be refuted merely because of the ’roundness of the circle’ drawn on the board.
LikeLike
CD,
You should know I like interacting with you. I don’t mind a bit. You should also know I don’t believe myself to have all the answers, but to be continually moving forward in my understanding. As I understand from interaction with you before, you have a different views than both the basic Protestant and the Catholic. That is one reason I like interacting with you. You present your understanding and expect others to interact from their personal understanding.
So, I’ll coalesce my thoughts and get them up here soon.
LikeLike
Robert, ding on how most Reformed-to-Roman conversions seem to run. But when it comes to the sex scandals, I’m with Darryl and opposed to Bugay and Bob S. It’s just bad form to hound the other guy over things that happen in our camp. I will say that what we have going for us is a Presbyterian view of authority, and what Rome has against it is its authoritarian view. The jockeying around of guilty parties is a natural function of authoritarianism, as in saving face. The natural function of presbyetrianism is transparency. Sometimes Presbyterians behave like authoritarians when human depravity happens. It would be good to see Rome behave like Presbyterians, but when they behave like authoritarians it makes sense, even if unfortunate.
LikeLike
Sean,
I don’t think I have ever said anything about an IP. Thanks for the constructive info. Just remember I’m a mono a mono type of fella. I seek to find my way into your mind and expect others to do the same with what I put forward to them. I understand it as the respectful thing to do in dialog.
LikeLike
@sean —
Couldn’t agree more! Yes, yes. Catholic apologists when making historical claims need to talk about the history of Earth, i.e. they have to deal with the historical relevant data. Catholic apologists when making biblical claims need to talk about the relevant scriptural data. Catholic apologists when making claims about the unity of the church need to deal with the sociological data. Etc…
LikeLike
Zrim,
I agree to a point about not wanting to knock Rome about the abuse scandal. What annoys me is that the Roman apologists do not seem to see how their doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility lends itself to such cover-ups more than a doctrine of ecclesiastical fallibility. There is a tendency in all organizations—including Presbyterianism—for leaders to shelter their own. It’s part of our fallen nature. But it seems to me that such a drive becomes nearly unstoppable when you proclaim the infallibility of the church because it adds the extra incentive of “we’re infallible, and if we let anyone see these problems, they will doubt our infallibility.”
That, plus the fact that I see few Roman apologists willing to see how the scandal might give people pause before swimming the Tiber, makes it that much harder to take an already strained case for infallibility seriously.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that once you proclaim yourself infallible, you create a strong drive to eliminate transparency. I don’t think it necessarily means that the church is more open to abuse, as we all know that abuse happens within all organizations. It seems that it encourages the fallen man’s proclivity to hide what is shameful and to do whatever he can to avoid shedding the light on what is really going on behind the scenes.
LikeLike
CD,
You said:
“The Reformation was when the opposition unified, not when it came into existence.
I see your point in this statement and to a degree it is true, but the Reformation has a particular set of believed truths that it used its unified power to carry as a standard. Even the Reformation essential understands itself to be the one Christianity as opposed to Arianism or Eastern Christianity. It didn’t fight for a unmitigated broadening of what it means to be Christian. It fought for a narrowing in the same what the Catholic stands for a narrow understanding of what is the Church. The Church is one no matter if I leave if or if the whole of the US bishops leave it. The Catholic view of the Church is both definable through where you can find its local expressions and though its union with the Divine single head, Christ. It is seen both by the flesh and the Spirit aspects; as the Lord and maker of it is. He was one, so she will be one. Being we are made in His image, we reflect His attributes through the created order.
LikeLike
FWIW here is my opinion on the sex scandals.
#1 I think standards regarding sexual interaction with post-pubescents and adults have shifted dramatically since the 1970s. Behaviors that were normal before are much less tolerated. Paederasty was normative behavior for male homosexuals. It wasn’t even uncommon that men initiated other adolescents into sex. This used to be (and IMHO should be) seen as entirely different behavior than pedophilia. I think there were good reasons for changing the standards, but standards did change and that often isn’t taken into account.
#2 There was a lot of homophobia which created a culture of secrecy about sexual abuse. Male sexual abuse victims were often very reluctant to come forward because they had participated. Being involved in sexual abuse was a stigma for the boys.
#3 The church did a dreadful job of handling these priests. They simply lack the institutional depth to handle criminal behavior or deep psychological problems. This isn’t uncommon for churches and Protestant churches that have been faced with similar situations (young boy or girls) often handled them equally badly.
#4 Faced with having screwed up rather than coming clean they falsified documents, intimidated witnesses and lied. This damaged their public credibility and it should have. Their ability to get away with this for so long was based on a widespread public belief that the church wouldn’t cover something like this up. There never should have been that level of trust. Having abused it they deserve the consequences.
#5 To this day they haven’t come clean, faced the consequences, and dealt with the issue in a forthright manner. This shows a tremendous indifference to the welfare of the laity. The laity understands it like this and should.
LikeLike
MTX, it doesn’t come off as dialog. It comes off as project. And no offense, but I already have a few people wormed into my head, and there’s not much more room up there. But most of us, have done this ad infinitum. It’s ok. Hammer away. But chasing infinite regresses and unanswerable hypotheticals, much less principled distinctions without ground in reality is tiresome. Darryl’s gonna lose his mind before it’s all over, and I may have to undergo counseling if I have to hear anymore about the culturally appraised truths(legitimate charism, interpretation) of the ‘Tradition’ that the prot-catholics want to ‘dialogue’ with us about. You’re a sincere guy, but you may get run over on occasion. You seem like you can hang, but remember we don’t do emoticons in this corner of the interweb and the wounded tend to themselves.
LikeLike
Sean, what do you mean by “it comes off as project”?
LikeLike
Sean, by “find my way into your mind”, I mean understanding your words and the point of view which you speak them from.
LikeLike
@MichaelTX
I don’t think that’s entirely true. There are 3 types of reformers.
1) Political reformers who wanted to change the people running the church. Whether it be financial corruption, moral corruption, a desire for the church to be more subservient to the state governments they didn’t like the what the church was doing and who they were. Prince Frederick (Luther’s patron), Henry VII or Elizabeth of York (Henry VIII’s mother) would haven fallen into this group.
2) Doctrinal reformers who wanted minor doctrinal reforms but wanted to keep the structure of the Catholic mostly intact. Calvin and Luther are in this group.
3) Radical reformers. Who hated the Catholic church and wanted to create an entirely different type of structure.
There is a very strong tendency in Catholic apologetics to act as if (2) were the only reformers. They weren’t. Most certainly group (3) existed and they absolutely wanted to broaden the definition that was explicit intent. Group (1) most certainly new the effect of their reforms (i.e. breaking the church up territorially) would be more doctrinal diversity.
More importantly in around 100 years it became broadly clear to everyone that Europe would not be Protestant or Catholic. But rather the impact of the Reformation would be the possibly permanent death of Christendom and the creation of competing churches. People understood this as the effects of their actions, acknowledged it and went ahead with actions to institutionalize this state of affairs. So I can’t see how one can’t consider what happened later to be intent.
LikeLike
CD,
I think you should be able to look at each group you have divided up their and see each group has it’s own narrowing reason for standing against the one Catholic Church. They all held a narrow truth against the Church’s own held narrow truth saying “no, this is how it should be.” As the saying goes “the enemy of y enemy is my friend.” Until the enemy is dead or the enemy is no longer considered an enemy that will be the case. I now see the Catholic Church as my friend and the compatriot of Christ.
LikeLike
Robert, agreed. Infallibility breeds authoritarianism. Add a dash of common human ill, and voila, the emperor has no clothes.
“Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that once you proclaim yourself infallible, you create a strong drive to eliminate transparency.” No, you’re right, just not infallibly so.
LikeLike
Hart,
Did I lose you?
LikeLike
Robert, in other words, I think you’re right but probably only because I agree with you. Little epistemological humor there.
LikeLike
Well, Zrim, as long as you recognize that you are submitting to my wisdom only insofar as it confirms to your interpretation of the relevant data.
LikeLike
It almost makes you feel a little sorry for the philosophical crowd……… Nah, not really. This must be what the modern RC magisterium, without the sword of the state behind them, feels like when they issue churchly dictums and 95% of the ‘faithful’ employ their charism to shrug their shoulders and ask for verification. It’s almost enough to make you rethink the value of your IP to explain the really real.
LikeLike
Hart,
I understand if it is hard for you to keep up with everybody. I hope you understand that this is important to me.
Here is my last post I am wondering about:
Hart welcoming all is not the same as you personal wishing to here my point of view here. That is my question.
Please respond. At least let me know you are getting my posts or not. You are free to give the response some time.
Michael
LikeLike
Respond by email if you like.
michaeltx2013 @ gmail com
LikeLike
MTX, wishing may be a little strong. I’m not going to send you an invitation. I am willing to listen. But know that if you sound like Jason and the Callers you will not find a welcome hearing, unless you can say something different from what the Callers say.
LikeLike
Hart,
That could be a lot of studying of their material, which I’m not really up for. I have been on Jason’s site once in the last three months and about three times at CTC’s in the last six months. I got no problem with any of the guys but I just don’t spend my time rummaging through their material. I have enough reading I do.
We don’t seem to work well on those terms from what I have experienced so far. I’ll probably keep my distance in our interaction. Do you have a problem with me staying and chatting with others?
LikeLike
It’s just bad form to hound the other guy over things that happen in our camp.
Robert nailed it, Grim. If you got a problem with that, it ain’t just with me and John.
Michael, read what DG just said.
You wanna post here, you can. But if you are going to mouth the standard RC/CtC formulas you’re gonna get incoming. Yeah, we know you don’t think you sound like Jase and the rest, but maybe you haven’t been around that long. Make that: you haven’t.
IOW if you can’t handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
FTM Prov. 13:20 a companion of fools picks up bad habits. Those who are members of an infallible church seem to end up thinking the charism rubs off on them and accordingly begin authoritatively instructing us in the Roman verities. But implicit faith is what it is, along with ignorance being the mother of devotion and prods that we are, we ain’t buying on your or Jeremy’s say so.
Nothing personal, that’s just the way it is.
cheers
LikeLike
MTX, not at all.
LikeLike
Thanks Hart.
Hey Bob,
I read what he said. In interacting with him I can expect to be on his bad side if a rub into a CTC view point. I don’t know what all they hold and should not be expected to learn them all to keep from receiving and ridged answer. So, I will move on from interacting with Hart. I don’t have a problem with any of the Catholic truths that I speak of being challenged. It is when someone speaks to me as if personally I have said things others have said about the Catholic view point. The Truth is the Truth, but it can be seen and described from different points of view. If you wish to grasp my view point, ask. It may be that of a CTC fellow, but God guilds each of us with a rainbow of diversity to one divinely unified white light. I include all men of good will and seekers of Truth in that description, not just visibly Catholic ones. I speak to be understood and would seek to understand your point of view too. What I believe this to be is dialog for understanding what others understand as truth. I believe it is worth it, even if I catch a few blows to the cheek.
LikeLike
Bob,
Concerning your thought about my say so:
When you first sought to understand Christian truth more, was it all just because you thought about it yourself or was there someone who made you think it would be worth it?
LikeLike
MichaelTX,
As I said, this is where I graze. So I may pop in every once in a while. Someone accused me in this forum of basically dropping in for a “hello” and essentially saying “goodbye” before I even show up. Didn’t bother me he said that, but it revealed I may rankle people with my style in blogs. So my apologies up front for my shortcomings. But I’ve got to freshen up here pretty soon and go to work, and I have many things that take up my time. Since this is not my blog, I’m free, as you are, to post publicly when and if I please, and to leave, when and if I please. The freedom afforded to you is afforded to all of us, is all I am saying.
Here’s what struck me, and not sure anyone picked up on it:
“I will say though, some denomination separated from false brides and became more pure because of it.”
You seem to leave room for someone such as Martin Luther to be in the right. True?
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Andrew,
I leave room for anyone truly following their conscience seeking to do what they believe to be good to their neighbor for the love of God. All should follow the understood truth of the moment. That doesn’t mean it is the universal Truth just because it should be in conscience moved forward through. I think Peter was doing what he should have when he called Jesus to avoid the cross. That is how he ran into the word of the universal truth coming from the mouth of God, when Jesus said, “Get the behind me Satan.” By God’s grace, it is in following what we believe to be true that God brings us face to face with Truth in person.
LikeLike
MTX, I think this is the problem. When you say the truth is the truth, you don’t seem to acknowledge that the truth is contested. So you need to admit that folks here aren’t going to agree with you. Will that change the way you say things? It should unless you want to sound like some kind of RC pod.
The other thing that would help is if you acknowledge that the truth is contested even among RC’s. That’s my biggest beef with the Callers. They keep throwing out dogma that maybe 1% of their church accepts. I mean, I don’t claim to speak for all Presbyterians, let alone Orthodox Presbyterians. Who died and made them the St. Louis papacy?
LikeLike
Michael,
The issue in 2009 was with evolution in the backdrop. We on both sides, we talked of how “God alone is the Lord of the conscience.” Google that in relation to us presbys. My goal here is to encourage honest seekers to feel free to express themselves openly. But this takes first with the people God had placed me near, namely, the church body in which God had placed. God had not seen fit to make you Protestant. The idea is, you should be working with those in your proximity. I think you should take, what I believe to be, your Protestant viewpoints, and share with your Catholic brothers. We’ve all got issues. But your continuing here makes as much sense as me posting and talking with Jason Stellman. I see very little probability of my doing going when the other 4 billion or so with an internet connection have as much to say to him, as I do. What I am saying is, ask yourself if you are truly seeking to understand us. If so, we’ll be able to tell. If not, there are other blogs you might try.
We’re always here for ya,
Andrew
LikeLike
Hart,
I full acknowledge there is some contested truths between us. I also full acknowledge there is contested truths among fellow Catholics. With that said that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church teaches multiple truths. It teaches one set of truths which it claims are the Truths of God. What a set of Catholics says does not change that. Your Church teaches one set of truths and expects adherants to learn them, believe, adhere to them and spread them or find some other Church. Right? Wasn’t that why Machen and the OPC crowd set out to hold to what they believed was true and good over what His Church was now doing?
LikeLike
Michael, Google the presbytery of northern California and Nevada, and and go to the audio section of presbytery. Read the animus imponentis lectures fro 2009. They are not infallible. But if you care about the OPC, take my word. Read those. Later.
LikeLike
Michael,
Good to see that you’re back. I hope you are doing better.
LikeLike
Andrew,
I understand those around me to walk in light of the faith they embrace as taught by their accepted authority. The Catholic Church. Those in the church already should know who their teacher is, Christ. I am only the direct teacher of my family of six.
Our catechism states:
1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment…. For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God…. His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”47
1777 Moral conscience… enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.
1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
– One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
– the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”56
– charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.”57 Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”58
Am here to present my personal understanding from within the Church after being Protestant and hear the perspectives which others hold to be true as Reformed Protestants. I am no ones teacher here.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
MTX, there you go again, tightening my jaws. You say that Rome doesn’t teach multiple truths. But you need to acknowledge that it appears to teach multiple truths on basic issues. As I quoted in a recent post:
So again, if you want to affirm certain positive attributes about your church, fine. But you also need to see that this isn’t the way the church has come across. And it can’t be that we don’t have the right paradigm because plenty of folks with a holy charism (remember, Vatican II said the whole church has it) think the church has spoken out of both sides of its mouth. Appeals to devt. of doctrine won’t make the problem go away.
LikeLike
Will do, Andrew. Do you really feel I don’t personally listen to you?
LikeLike
Michael, 18 holes is what I would require of you. Keep working on that swing (emoticon). See you around.
LikeLike
And let me just add among that 1% doesn’t appear to be the actual church leadership they claim to be in submission to. The actual leadership for better or worse considers formal unity far more important than doctrinal unity.
I’ve often commented that while Catholicism was not the first form of Christianity it was the first Christian sect that really aimed to a religion not a sect. CtC often talks of Catholicism like you would a sect. Religions have huge areas of people with light attachments, and they want those people. Sects want people clearly in or out.
LikeLike
CD – Host,
Where are you getting this 1% You can’t just make up statistics. One of the areas where Catholicism is growing the fastest right now, in the once Protestant Southeast, (see http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/protestant-south-becoming-a-new-catholic-stronghold) are some of the most conservative diocese in the nation. In Atlanta, where there are 3x as many Catholics as 10 years ago (see the article), many of them are conservative Protestant converts, not old New England liberals. I’m fine with you saying that there are many Kennedy Catholics out there, but to say that only 1% actual submit to the Magisterium is incorrect. Where did you find this number? Honesty is a good step towards genuine dialogue.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Hart,
I will see if I can loosen your jaw with a different word. When I said, ” that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church teaches multiple truths,” I mean It doesn’t present separable truths any more than the WCF does. A Catholic is called to confess either they believe the multiple truths as taught by the Catholic Church or they must consider themselves in error according to the Church of Jesus Christ. They nust then make a decisions of the truth of that proposition.
I do have a problem with your summary of Lumen Gentium here: In other words, there is no sacred monopoly on holiness and truth.
That “although” there is pretty important.
Sorry, I probably retighten your jaw.
Michael
LikeLike
Jeremy, I think you’re right. I think what the RCC should do is stop taking the tithes from the “Kennedy catholics”, bar them from the eucharist, start immediate disciplinary procedures on all priests, academia, novitiates, seminaries, religious orders and seminarians, who whether they self-identify as such, you ‘know’ who they are. And I think you should start in Ireland and Poland first and then work your way over to the states with your reform movement.
LikeLike
Drew P,
Good to “see” you too. I am well. I have been meaning to try and catch you. Just haven’t got back over in that post yet. I think this is my third or forth day back in blogs. You still diggin in any of those thoughts about the canon?
LikeLike
@Jeremy —
I’m getting this 1% rhetorically from DGH’s comment. It is not being used as a literal statistic in context.
Now if you want to start talking real statistics. Pew is a good source. In 1974 Catholics who had distanced themselves started to skyrocket. Normally religions are in the 45% range. Catholics shot up to 49% and then slowly rose to 62% today. That is an intensely dissatisfied and demoralized laity.
As for the ideology when we look at specific issues like contraception that even if we restrict to weekly mass attendance, i.e. those who know the church’s teachings:
33% consider contraceptives morally acceptable
30% believe contraceptive use is not a moral issue at all
10% believe it depends
and only 27% agree with the church’s positions.
Now if we look at Catholics who don’t attend weekly only 5% agree with the church and that’s a larger group.
Even on abortion Catholics split 54/40 in favor. On the other hand when you start asking about specifics the numbers peel much lower:
only 13% oppose IVF which is creating possibly dozens of embryos implanting some and destroying the remainder.
22% oppose embryonic research (that is creating embryos in a lab, experimenting on them and destroying them)
I’d love to see the data on the 13% opposed to IVF and see how they hold up on the death penalty.
You want to deal with the data I’m fine with that. But then don’t talk about anecdotes about Atlanta let’s talk data.
LikeLike
Sean,
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/22/kennedy.abortion/
LikeLike
Andrew,
I would love it if we could catch 18 holes together. Really too bad we are 30 hours apart. Maybe someday, friend. Though I am sure you would slaughter me.
Later,
Michael
LikeLike
That’s why we would have to play. Stranger things have happened. First rule of golf, though, is it’s never your fault. We’ll have to stick to comboxxing for the forseeable future. My next golf outing with a church friend may not be until November. Just have to alwyas throw that in. You need only a 7 or 8 iron, and a backyard, and YouTube training videos to get started. That goes for all you chumps!
Lates……….
LikeLike
Jeremy, don’t you think the Southeast growth is largely Hispanic immigrants — legal and illegal?
LikeLike
Jeremy, thanks for that. Only about 900 million more or so to go. Although Tobin says it was a suggestion, not a ban, nor did he admonish the 300 or so priests to enforce the suggestion, and was surprised Patrick took it public. The term Kennedy catholic was yours not mine. But, being as I grew up there, I caught the demographic. Still, I’m willing to bet the church still cashes the Kennedy’s checks.
To an additional point, it illuminates the political nature of the RC faith and how the application of cultic morals to political legislation is a move that compromises both sides and now that Rome no longer has backing of the state, she might be better served to not only embrace a conciliar reform of authority but adopt a 2k orientation toward the world.
LikeLike
Not saying we’re all legal here. There’s an urban legend that Sean was smuggled over in Guinness barrel.
LikeLike
Sean,
Did you get a chance to glance through that Kline book on the limitations of the ANE theory?
LikeLike
@Jeremy —
And how does that article not support Sean’s point? Bishop Tobin writes a pastoral letter on the sly he doesn’t force a real excommunication. He’s shocked and freaked that Kennedy takes it public and won’t take real questions.
There has been AFAIK 5 of those incidents.
Lucy Killea who goes on to win the election in a land slide because Catholics (among others) side with her over the Bishop: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/03/us/abortion-and-religion-put-focus-on-election.html
Mario Cuomo is attacked by name by Cardinal O’Conner who argues Catholic politicians cannot support abortion rights. The indirect target being Ferraro. Cuomo is invited to Notre Dame to give a speech on why he disagrees with the Cardinal. He receives massive support among Catholics and goes on to easily win reelection. His son is current governor of NY following his father’s legacy.
John Kerry is threatened in 2004. He waffles all over the place and loses support from all sides and may have lost support from traditionalist Catholics in key states Score one for the Bishops.
Joe Biden is attacked by the Bishop of his childhood home. His current bishop sides with Biden against Bishop Martino.
And the incident above. I’m seeing this 4-1 in terms of winner / loser and in 5 out of 5 cases no one is actually excommunicated. Now I ask you this: do you think DGH’s church would have a membership that would side against him if his session threatened to excommunicate someone over repeatedly violating their beliefs on television in front of audiences of millions?
Time and time and time again the Catholic laity in every way possible indicates they don’t agree with the hierarchy on issues of faith and morals. Your examples prove Sean’s point, they don’t excommunicate because they understand they lack the membership support to have it be anything other than the start of a possible schism.
LikeLike
Michael,
I’m right where we left off in that conversation and would be glad to pursue it further but there’s no rush.
LikeLike
Michael, I see nothing on limitation other than they don’t fit the time frame in consideration. They have some resemblance to wisdom literature that fit within the treaty form. But again they’re late in authorship to qualify. They’re at best an extra-canonical historical reference.
LikeLike
Sounds good Drew. I’ll review where we were we at and see where to go from there.
Sean,
Do you mind if I respond over where we were last talking about it? “If You Can’t Stand Superiority” Right?
LikeLike
Jeremy, you know the old line about statistics. But is this really an indication of a trend or somehow trying to find a glass half full: “One telling indicator is vocations to the priesthood. Knoxville expects to have 23 men in graduate seminary next year. Contrast the Archdiocese of Chicago, which has 37 times as many parishioners but only three times as many graduate seminarians next year, at an anticipated enrollment of 70. Boston, which is nearly 30 times the size of Knoxville, will have 60.”
Reformed seminaries produce way more graduates than Roman Catholic institutions, and we are much smaller than the U.S. church. That means we’re winning.
Right.
LikeLike
MTX, then I supposed Cardinal Dulles tightens your jaw. Just saying.
Don’t leave out the bad stuff.
LikeLike
Sean, don’t let facts get in the way of conception.
LikeLike
CD-H, but if you wave the CTC wand over it, it all turns up Rosary.
LikeLike
Hart,
I’ll say he definitely makes me want to read him in context and look at the Church Magisterium
docs he is supposedly applying. Then after all that, depending on how things work out, I might be really glad he is not my pastor or bishop. They are my appointed teachers in the faith, not him. I pray for the teachers in the Church already. I pray they all proclaim the truth clearly. BTW, where can I catch the context of that text?
LikeLike
Hart,
If I thought it might be the valid interpretation, I would bring up my fears and concerns with my pastor. “…can be saved…” is not the same as will be saved. If the Church truly taught salvation just through sincerity alone, I couldn’t be Catholic. I’m sure Hitler was quite sincere.
LikeLike
D.G. – Who died and made them the St. Louis papacy?
Erik – I think it may have moved to Cedar Rapids.
LikeLike
Look at the 9th name down the list:
https://www.mtmercy.edu/faculty-and-staff-directory?dept=Philosophy%2C+Religion+%26+Campus+Ministry&linkSet=OS
This means if I go book scouting in Iowa City I could practically throw a rock and hit Bryan with it (in the peace of Christ, of course).
He might even be able to make the Big Social. 2 hours from Des Moines.
LikeLike
MTX, But Urban VIII did say “cannot be saved.” Rome since V2 has completely dropped that notion. Doesn’t want to offend anyone I guess, sort of like evangelicals.
LikeLike
Erik, I guess CR is the Pisa of Iowa.
LikeLike
Erik, on the guest list, don’t make me moody.
LikeLike
D.G.,
I’ll be working the door and it will look something like this:
LikeLike
Michael. Let’s get down to specific. The Catholic apologists here can’t address the basic flaws in their argument. Look at the last 2 days on this thread.
You made a claim about the Reformation I countered it by pointing to the different factions, You gave a profession of faith.
There has been a discussion of how authoritarian structures led to the coverups and institution corruption in the Catholic church. Crickets.
Jeremy proudly points to his church exercising discipline to prove how united they are. I mention that they didn’t discipline anyone and they went 4-1 in terms of losing the PR because their laity sided against them. Crickets.
Jeremy asked to discuss data. We bring up data. Crickets.
One of the core claims is that Catholic doctrine is a deposit of faith preserved from the apostles. DGH keeps bringing up radical changes in doctrine which show that the deposit of faith isn’t all that well preserved over the last 200 years.
And over on the blog where we original met (Jason’s blog) he still wants to talk about history apostolic succession and being historically credible and… Except when people bring up real history: archeology, the documentary record, testimony of contemporary witness, dating of document…. Crickets. The working definition of history seems to be nothing more than taking what dead propagandists from long ago said on faith.
I’m so tired of dealing with this nonsense about people who want to ignore the facts because the facts don’t support their theories. The last two days are pretty indicative of how truly pathetic the Catholic case is when you look into it.
I’ll let you talk professions of faith and personal values with the rest of the group. But this pre-labor day round has been pathetic and embarrassing.
LikeLike
My wife could fulfill the Babs/Mandy role if only I could get her to come to the conference. Hopefully she’ll at least make lunch.
LikeLike
CD,
So if I understand you correctly, you’re not heeding the Callers call…
LikeLike
CD-Host,
Quite the breakdown, there. Anyway, fascinating that the same thing you were talking about when we “met” at Lane’s blog is where we are now at. I appreciate the time you’ve put into studying these matters.
Regards,
Andrew
PS I wonder if I’m the only one here who knows your real name…
LikeLike
CD, I hope you can give me til Monday to adress those thoughts. I try not to us much time on the pc over the weekend.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Hart,
The V2 doc just quoted does say clearly that truth found outside of Christ’s one Church are “gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, [and] are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”
In Para 48:
And this para 51 bold part in context:
This has never said those outside the Church will be saved, only this Church of Christ outside of which one “cannot be saved” is “constituted and organized in the world as a society, [and] subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
Remember these words when you read the latter: “For all of us, who are sons of God… when Christ shall appear and the glorious resurrection of the dead will take place… Then the whole Church of the saints in the supreme happiness of charity will adore God
Where does that leave the non-sons of God, the non-adorers? Outside the ekklesia[assembled/called out]. Right?
LikeLike
CD-Host,
I had some extra time, so thought I would try to keep you from hanging. I think you have been unfair to me in you above post.
To start I am not “the Cathlolic apologist here” I’m Michael from Texas and would be happy to share private emails with you if you wish to know more about me personal. Also, here you said: You made a claim about the Reformation I countered it by pointing to the different factions, You gave a profession of faith.
I agree with your basic point and moved to what I believe to be the error you have missed in the point you were trying to make. Namely that, yes, the Reformation was a movement containing separate groupable sections, but that each section and more specifically each person in those sections had a specific set of reasons or truth claims which they fought for against the specific truth claims of the Catholic Church. In that way it was a truth claim against against a truth claim. Even if it was an array of differing truth claims against the Catholic Church it was still all motivated by specific believed truths against specific believed Catholic truths.
I hope that makes sense of that. Personally, I was still waiting on a rebuttal of that from you.
With regard to authoritarianism and cover ups, I largely agree with what you and others have said. I also wasn’t asked for any input and I have had enough to chat about with out getting in on that.
I also largely agree with you on the amount of disciple occurring in the Church to be on the low end of the discretionary range.
As to your last point about the deposit of faith changing, you can see from most of me and DG, who put that forward, is where I we get into debating the authoritative and pastoral Church docs.
Please ask me when you want to know my view on something. I do really try to be upfront with my points and confess my ignorance of the areas I don’t know. Such as you speak of here: “archeology, the documentary record, testimony of contemporary witness, dating of document”
LikeLike
MTX, so maybe you can help me understand Cardinal Dulles:
Lots of people read that and say Rome became universalist at Vatican II.
Anyway, your interpretation is just an opinion, sort of what happens when Protestants start reading their Bibles.
LikeLike
@Mike
That’s not true of the political group. They mostly did not think the Catholic faith was false, their problems were specific figures. Prince Frederick was a relic collecting Catholic, but he wanted a unified German state and saw the Italian Popes as thwarting that. I don’t know whether he even agreed with Luther’s religious positions. Elizabeth of York might have been completely orthodox Catholic in her faith, she just wanted to fire the bishop of York.
But even if that were true, that this was about truth claims rather than power for all the reformers, so what? How does the fact that you agree with the church in any way indicate anything one way or the other about whether the Reformers (especially the radical reformers) did or did not aim to broaden the church? Especially as the Reformation wore on and it became obvious that the effect of the Reformation would be a multiplicity of faiths, and they continued regardless.
What support do you have for your contention?
LikeLike
Hart,
No doubt anything I write you will be up for your interpretations too. Interpretation must happen on something somewhere to move forward in anything. It just depends where and how the interpretation is done and who is receiving and giving. I’m not prone to say interpreting the Scriptures or anything else is a necessarily a bad thing. We start were we are and move forward to where God would have us in relation to Him. All this happens through His providential care, of course.
Anyway,
To Cardnal Dulles. First he is not the Church docs or the Magisterium. If you want a document that directly addresses this issue, read Dominus Iesus here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
I skimmed Dulles entire article which the quote is pulled from. The quote is much more balenced when put with in the article from what I can tell, but I still wouldn’t jump those words together like that if it were me. It also wasn’t put that way in any V2 docs. No reason for that I’m sure.[sarcasm]
These two paragraphs cited below, which are the two paragraphs right before the one you have quoted do put a little more light on the Cardinal’s words and what he fully might be trying to say better. I think it is very important that he says in the article he says the the V2 docs “did not indicate whether it is necessary for salvation to come to explicit Christian faith before death.” Dulles also says the V2 docs say all people have “sufficient help to be saved. Whoever sincerely seeks God and, with his grace, follows the dictates of conscience is on the path to salvation.”
Here are the two paragraphs spoken of above:
What did you think of my direct quotes fro the V2 docs? Do they bring more light on the universal salvation you believed they had taught?
LikeLike
Hart, BTW I was talking about my V2 quotes in the earlier post to you @3:49.
CD,
I’ll have to get back to your request Monday or Tuesday.
Blessings,
Michael
LikeLike
MTX, so you are saying that V2 still maintains there is no salvation outside the church even though Protestants, Jews, and others have the truth but not in a full way.
The point isn’t about interpretation. It’s about how you reconcile apparently contradictory statements. Lots of RC historians (who have the right paradigm) believe V2 changed the church’s teaching. And yet you (plus CTC) keep telling us that nothing changed in a fundamental dogmatic way. That wasn’t the experience (still isn’t) of the church and isn’t how the documents read. Instead, this insistence that nothing changed looks like you’re in denial.
I still contend that V2 liberalized the church. And development of doctrine is simply the Roman Catholic way of doing what liberal Protestants did. I believe there is no salvation outside the church (Unam Sanctam) and I believe there is salvation outside the church.
LikeLike
Hart,
The Church still says that.
I have no doubt you have an understandable reason to believe as you do regarding the idea of the Catholic Church having been liberalized. You don’t believe the Catholic Church is Christ’s visibly established Church. Why some Catholics do is totally obscure to me. The texts don’t say what some Catholics try to make them say. I understand it may not matter much to you, but why not address the direct quotes from the authorized sources and assume they aren’t throwing out Catholic dogma[which is a un-Catholic premise denying infallibility and the Holy Spirit’s protection] and try to understand them in that point of view. That how one who believes Christ’s Church is Christ would look at the texts. Whether the Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church can remain undecided to look at it and understand that point of view. If I as a Catholic know the Church is Christ’s Church and forsake His Church I have forsaken Him and should have no expectation but “a fearful prospect of judgement and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”[Heb 10:27] This would be the out come of someone in your communion leaving to indulge the flesh by going around the disciplines of the local church you attend. Right?
I hope you will read the actual texts and Magisterial documents you claim teach liberalized Catholicism and not the word of liberal Catholics. I don’t listen to liberal Reformed folks to judge your Church standards or the WCF. I read the docs and assume you guy’s try and speak consistently with what you understand to be truth. I hope you read Dominus Iesus [Jesus is Lord]. It addresses these issues directly. It is a document from the Church, not just a member of the Church, such as myself and Cardinal Dulles. Here is a few quotes in it:
And:
And:The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
And:
It takes the authorized Church saying the liberalized premises for me to consider the Church teaching it.
LikeLike
MTX, I’ve read many of the documents. The RCC says a lot. For all of the sacerdotalism you can’t sort through all the words. Remember, I think your catechism is so long that no will actually try to learn it.
But you still don’t quite grasp that V2 disrupted life for many Roman Catholics and that is because the church changed what it was saying. Religious freedom and separation of church and state are just two matters that I have studied in some detail. And if you haven’t noticed, one of the consequences of this change is that RC lay people now define RC positions on almost every aspect of American policy and never once check with their bishops or the Vatican. What goes on today in RC US circles used to be a heresy (Americanism). But here is Kenneth Woodward’s reflection:
Until you actually wrestle existentially with something that has afflicted other RC’s, all your assertions of dogma are going to ring hollow.
So you can quote old or new dogma all you want. But eventually you may have to adopt a position like Christian Smith (another Protestant convert):
You’re sounding Protestant with all this logocentrism and rationalism.
LikeLike
No Hart, I’m sounding Christian. And a bit high middle ages Scholastic from what I understand. But I’m in a modern age. I don’t have my reason over the Faith I have it subjected to the revelation of God as I understand it.
I’ll read over what you have said in detail and get back with you tomorrow.
LikeLike
Hart,
Hope you enjoyed the labor day. After reading over your latest post all the way through, I want you to know I see your points and they were things that to a degree I wrestled with while coming into the Church. (I basically read only your words yesterday) You points are deeper that mine were but they are essentially the same. You have more information you are dealing with than I was therefore you have more to sort through. But essentially in you first quote from Woodward has two things that are being dealt with. One being how does the Catholic deal with changes in disciplines and not understand the teaching of the Church changing. And two how does the Catholic live with the wheat and tares of the nature of the Church.
In the discipline change part, in is always hard to implement or change how things are done in a family including the OPC, I’m sure you can witness to that. Amplify that by a worldwide ripple and there is more noticeable confusion and human distress in the family members. That discipline part sort of blends in with the faithful and unfaithful members with in the Church part. For clarity sake, Catholics can and do keep many of the pre-Vat II disciplines. They are still good practices just not required disciplines. There are still local parishes that practice the Latin form of the Mass and I have ladies in my parish which wear the head covering. The Church still has requirements to make confession and still has days of fasting and abstinance. Parents are still called to give their children a Christian education. And, I explained confirmation to my own son as him now being a warrior for Truth in God’s army. There is still a Sunday obligation for Mass and impure thoughts are still sin.
Hart, these are things I have wrestled with.
With your second quote, I think I understand Christian Smith’s point. I’m wondering why you are quoting it to me. What are you getting at?
LikeLike
MTX, but will that sort of “we still have the practices” work? I mean, wasn’t it a sin to eat meat on Friday before Vatican II? Wasn’t it a sin not to go to confession? And didn’t becoming a nun or a monk give you a better seat at the salvation table? So when Vatican II makes these things optional, it’s not exactly holding on to the practices. Rome had to transform the undergirding theological structure.
LikeLike
CD-Host,
Thanks for waiting. You stated and asked:
But even if that were true, that this was about truth claims rather than power for all the reformers, so what? How does the fact that you agree with the church in any way indicate anything one way or the other about whether the Reformers (especially the radical reformers) did or did not aim to broaden the church? Especially as the Reformation wore on and it became obvious that the effect of the Reformation would be a multiplicity of faiths, and they continued regardless.
When I say I now agree with the truth as understood by the Church, It really has nothing to do with where a reformer would be. It says something about where I am in my understanding. From outside the Catholic Church the understanding of the Jesus’ Church is broadened, but from with in the Catholic Church the Church is still definable within certain perimeters. But that can be done with other churches, too. Most just don’t seek to dogmatically define the perimeters of Christ’s Church, at least from what I understand. Which is very little on that matter. It really would take too much for time for me to try and prove that “most” in the previous sentence. Just my current experience. The current perimeter defining seem to be left to folk like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormon’s, and some Church of Christ’s bodies. Not getting into folks outside of the Christian West for basic reasons.
But, getting to supporting my contention that the aim by reformers is not and has not been to broaden the church of Christ is that it doesn’t not coincide with the experience of human nature. We can take the life and work of the OPC leadman Machen for an example. He did not leave the Prebytyrian Church in the US to make the church he was leaving excepting of the views it held and the views he held. He led the pack of folk who believed in something substantially important to himself and those others to break bonds with a unfaithful body of Christians to form a self-understood faithful body. Too a large degree I believe Him to have acted wisely.
There are Christians in the ecumenical movement who strive for a broadening of the Church. They strive to lay out certain essentials and then bring together as one body all who can agree with those essentials. From a Catholic perspective, I believe this to be wrong and nothing more than a compromising of truth for the sake of peace. I believe it will lead to more divisions within the bodies of Christians who practice this. But this is my belief. I have no facts to back it up.
Even if you wish to try and say that political reformers didn’t believe in anything other than the Catholic faith but joined with the movement of the belief oriented reformers and the radical/church reformers then you are faced with a serious dilemma, as I understand it. They would be acting against the propagation of what they understood to be truth for the good of the moment in time. From the Catholic perspective that is called sin and therefore requires repentance. They acted against what their belief was and that would be a breaking of the conscience. Meaning they not only weren’t acting as good Catholics, they weren’t acting as good people. Therefore, we shouldn’t use them as good example for even decent living. You probably have a much greater grasp on the history of the period than I do. What do you think of my thought?
LikeLike
Hart,
It still is a sin to purposefully do any of the following: not go to confession at least one a year, to eat meat on Fridays(only in Lent now though), to not fast on Ash Wednesday or Good Friday, to purposefully miss Mass on a Sunday or a Holy Days of Obligation, to not receive Holy Communion once a year in the Easter season. If it is Christ’s Church what it calls for is to be done or it is sin. That has not changed. What particular things and ways some things are called for have. That isn’t a change in truth(divinity of Christ, requirement of repentance for forgiveness, Jesus died on a Friday to save us) that is a change in application of disciplines regarding good practice of Catholics regarding the truths of the faith.
LikeLike
In the Pope’s own words I believe Vat. II was about “opening up the church and letting in some fresh air”, or something along those lines.
How does a church with an infallible head get stale and musty? One would think he would always keep things sharp. Why would he need a Council to help him freshen things up?
In other news, I found a nice 12-page booklet put out by the United Presbyterian Church in the USA in the late 60’s on “Presbyterian History”. Someone had donated it to the local library and the sorters threw it out. No specific mention of the OPC, but they do appear on the “family tree” on page 11, along with the Bible Presbyterians.
The mainliners allowed women elders in 1930 & women ministers in 1956.
LikeLike
Hart,
Also, I’m not sure what you meant by “didn’t becoming a nun or a monk give you a better seat at the salvation table”. It would be a sin for me as a married man to try and do that. My call is to care for my family, not spend my day in a religious community under their disciplines. That would be me going around God’s call on my life, not living it. Each has their own gift from God. Mine is husband and father in my home.
LikeLike
Hey Erik,
I think it has to do with the fact that Jesus has even the Pope be a Catholic. Confessions and all.
LikeLike
Michael – Hey Erik,
I think it has to do with the fact that Jesus has even the Pope be a Catholic. Confessions and all.
Erik – ???
LikeLike
Erik,
He is a man, not a God-man. Meaning he is a sinner like you and I too. He isn’t perfect. He holds a office which has the ability to make infallible statements. That is not the same as his statements are infallible or his guidance inerrant.
LikeLike
If we want to read some inerrant guidance we ought to open our bibles.
LikeLike
Hart,
What did you mean by the nun and monk bit?
LikeLike
MTX, okay, if that gets you through the night. Meanwhile, most Roman Catholics in the U.S. don’t know of anything you assert. I wonder why that is.
LikeLike
MTX, monasticism was a way to flee the world and pursue salvation because the state of marriage automatically involved you in sin — sex always involves (as some interpret Augustine) concupiscence. Celibacy frees you from such wickedness.
LikeLike
Hart, I am not accountable for what other Catholics know. But, every one I have met knows these things. It is in the CCC. It is in the local US Catholic Catechism for Adults. It is in the YOUcat(youth catechism). It is in any Catholic examination of conscience that can be found(they are to prepare you for a good confession. I was taught it while coming into the Church by two parishes 70 miles aprtn separate dioceses(Tyler and Beaumont Texas). I hear it in my parish pulpit. It’s in my Catholic Bible and in my Missal(contains most of the prayers and all the Scripture reading for each days Masses). I’m not real sure what else could be done to inform the Catholic other than door to door tracts to all people. I hope you know I’m not trying to be sharp. These are just the facts. I assume you can see , if a Catholic doesn’t know it is because he is keeping his head in the dirt and denying the call of his God. He is living as if he is not Catholic.
LikeLike
Sean should be able to chim in on this if you ask him. It also is labeled on every Catholic liturgical calender.
LikeLike
Regarding sexual sin always being present even in marriage, I don’t believe that can be found in the teaching of the Church counsels. Even though it can be found in some prominent teachers within the Church, that doesn’t make it Church doctrine. The true balance here can be read in Paul who also promoted the preeminence of celibate life, but recognizes God giving different gifts to others; and ideally sees marriage as the earthly mystery of Christ and His Church.
LikeLike
MTX, maybe if the church backed it up, like the good old days of the Index of Books. If the church could excommunicate emperors, why not Garry Wills? So much authority, so little action.
LikeLike
MTX, I don’t think you can explain celibacy (which came late) without the church (officially or no) embracing concupiscence. I also think the Catholic Encyclopedia reflects a view you are not embracing. Plus, Augustine may have been on to something.
LikeLike
@MichaelTX
Well the first thing is I think you are failing to separate:
a) Do you agree with their motivations?
b) Did they have those motivations?
How you feel about the political reformers during the reformation should have 0 impact on your analysis of what they themselves believed. So an argument along the lines of, “because the political reformers are bad people we can pretend they didn’t exist when talking about the Reformation” I couldn’t disagree with more. If you want to make an argument that the reformation had lots of bad people and thus it should be repudiated that’s fine, but that’s a different argument than one about what the reformers believed.
As far as them not being good people or bad people. I tend to be mixed. Certainly Henry VIII combined the emotional temperament of a toddler with the powers of a absolute monarch and he’s not atypical of this group. But one thing I Catholics fail to take into account was that the Catholic church had proven irreformable by the Reformation. Bribery, financial waste, lack of investment, sexual corruption and duplicitous politics were effectively Catholic policy as much as the trinity. I think the political Reformers made a practical decision to side against a church which they agreed with more theologically but that was a moral shambles (or whom they just found incredibly irritating) for churches with whom they had less theological agreement but were morally superior. Failure to act would have been to support the bribery, the economic waste and the sexual immorality of the church. So I tend to see both sides as loaded with bad people.
On balance though I think the Catholic church had proven itself so morally offensive in behaviors like the Albigensian Crusade, the creation of the inquisition and the church’s encouragement of witch trials (in a papel encyclical incidentally) that they had lost the moral authority to be “the church”, whether they did or didn’t have it. An institution which used mass murder and sometimes genocide as its primary means of resolving theological disputes deserved to be defanged. I think that revolutions against corrupt evil governments are generally messy and the Reformation better than average in who was involved. In other words, my problems with the political reformers are far less than the institution they were reforming. I don’t have any problem understanding how someone could have believed the Pope to be Christ vicar on earth and still have supported the sack of Rome.
I’m not following your argument here. Someone is always going to have to be the outer edge. Church of Christ I don’t think is even that far off the mainstream. Most of the middle ages groups that had existed that were likely to flourish in an environment of religious experimentation were far more varied than CoC or JW’s more like the Mormons. Given the reformers were empowering those groups, they obviously understood the effects of their actions would be to broaden the faith.
Not a good example at all. Machen understood full well that he was creating a Presbyterian / Fundamentalist hybrid faith. He considered it important to do so, but he certainly knew the effects of his actions were to broaden what was considered part of the mainstream in American Protestantism. Machen helped to legitimize the idea of fundamentalist theology combined with mainline culture that would later become the core of the neo-evangelical movement. I’m not sure how that can be considered anything other than broadening the faith. Robert Speer who effectively kicked both Machen and Pearl Buck out would be someone might be someone who was trying to prevent a broadening of the faith from either the left or the right.
LikeLike
D.G.,
A little gift is on the way to you in today’s mail.
Not has one Old Life participant displayed this much generosity to another since Doug sent me “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” (which unfortunately remains buried under book mountain in the basement).
It will either be a nice display item for the home/office or could provide hours of entertainment for you & Mrs. Hart over the winter.
LikeLike
DG,
I’m not saying that it isn’t common or even the majority of the time that the sexuality of the marriage bed is actually disorder in some way by our remaining weaknesses. It takes a lot to become truly unselfish regarding the marital embrace. To truly make ourselves a full gift to our partners in all things is truly by grace alone. I am saying the Church has never officially said the marriage embrace always has sin involved in it. Man is weak but God’s plan for life contains no necessity to sin.
I also agree with you that more Church action should be happening to root out false teachers, but that also is not something I am accountable for. Those in the positions of authority will have to give an account of their own actions. I have enough trouble living up to what I am called to do.
LikeLike
Erik,
could provide hours of entertainment for you & Mrs.
Speaking of entertainment, I’m almost caught up to season 3 of Breaking Bad, with all the intentions to keep going. Thank goodness for Netflix.
Anyway, yes, we indeed have a very generous blogmeister in our midst…
Lates.
LikeLike
CD,
Glad you got back with me CD. I do like interacting with you.
You think I’m failing to separate the political reformers having certain motives and me agreeing with those motives. You could be right, because I have not examined the history enough to have a certain enough assessment of the situations or people. I’m not speaking precisely because I can’t. I profess my ignorance on the needed information to speak with any authority on the subject. I was just working with what you had given me from your point of view. I’m also not trying to making any argument on them being bad therefore we can ignore them. I am just pointing out that they either believed something worth fighting for, which could be the case and would put them having a positive set of truths they also were fighting for(though it would be in the common good of society arena), or they were bad people and should not be praised for any good effect. We can thank God for bring good from evil, but not the evil people. We ought not encourage such behavior. So, my comments are just a personal observation.
Regarding your opinion on Machen,
Here, in my opinion, is where your and my views of what Christianity and belief in general butt heads. It will be hard for me to point this out to you and I may have to read some Machen and invoke the aid of any Machenites. But, I do not agree with your thought that “reformers” fight for a broaden of what they want to be the acceptable Christian faith. They fight for what they believe to be the only truth understanding of that one Christian faith, as they understand it. They seek to be faithful to the conscience formed in the very core of their being. It is a conscience of full service to God and the truths they understand. This doesn’t mean what they understand is necessarily “the” truth of the Christian faith, but it is the heart of the reason for their action for those perceived beliefs and actions. They want to voice of truth to be heard and accepted by every lover of truth. They fight for a more narrowed view of the commonly accepted truth of their surrounding Christians and want all to know it and accept it. In this way they are seeking a smaller and more faithful, as they believe, community to the one and only truth.
LikeLike
Erik, I’ll make sure to have the neighbor boy open the package.
LikeLike
Any Machenites wish to chime in on my assessment above?
LikeLike
@MichaelTX —
The political reformers are all over the place in terms of motives. They varied from the set of common truths, like opposition to waste and bribery, to the incredibly selfish. It if very hard to tell the one from the other. For example what do you do with people who hate the monasteries because of their corruption and the tremendous amount of good land they are wasting, but they respond to that by taking a percentage of the sale price when the land is sold off? But getting back on topic, someone who supports the Reformation because they want to steal from the monasteries or alternatively they believe it is in societies best interest to break up the monasteries is not supporting the Reformation on the same grounds as Luther. You can hate the 16th century monasteries or lust after their wealth without believing in sola fide or sola scriptura. They understood what they were doing.
Similarly with Machen. Machen was not a stupid man. Absolutely Machen if he were suddenly King of the World he would want everyone to convert to conservative Presbyterianism under one church. But he understood that in his real position as a semi-popular religious figure the actual effect of his actions was to create a new sub-denomination that would be difficult to accommodate into the main denomination and thus advance the development of a more diversified Protestantism.
LikeLike
CD,
You said:
someone who supports the Reformation because they want to steal from the monasteries or alternatively they believe it is in societies best interest to break up the monasteries is not supporting the Reformation on the same grounds as Luther. You can hate the 16th century monasteries or lust after their wealth without believing in sola fide or sola scriptura.
With this above and your believing if Machen were “suddenly King of the World he would want everyone to convert to conservative Presbyterianism under one church” aren’t we in agreement that it was narrow truths or perceived greatest goods against narrow truths and perceived greatest goods, even if those against the Catholic Church were working together in some regards. Truth claim against truth claim other than ” the incredibly selfish”, as you have said. Protesters of some type againt the Ctholic Church which remained in communion with Rome. Even Luther and Calvin have truths between which they disagree. This is the reason there are different communions formed and named after them.
CD we seem to have made a full circle back to the contended point I made about the Reformation. I said, “the Reformation has a particular set of believed truths that it used its unified power to carry as a standard. Even the Reformation essential understands itself to be the one Christianity as opposed to Arianism or Eastern Christianity. It didn’t fight for a unmitigated broadening of what it means to be Christian. It fought for a narrowing in the same what the Catholic stands for a narrow understanding of what is the Church.” I added clarity by saying, “you should be able to look at each group you have divided up their and see each group has it’s own narrowing reason for standing against the one Catholic Church.”
You seem to be agreeing with those point now. Am I correct?
LikeLike
@MichaelTX —
I don’t think we are in agreement. I’m saying that if if a person does X knowing the effect will be Y, he wills Y. Even if in an ideal world you would prefer Z to Y he still will Y because he acts to create Y.
In particular coalitions are formed by people who individually have narrow interests.
A wants to pass the bill because he likes the increase in highway funding
B wants to pass the bill because he likes the tax rebates for corporations that are major contributors
C wants to pass the bill because the bridge is going to be built in his district
….
But, this is important
A understands that by working to pass the bill he is building a bridge and pushing for tax rebates
B understands that by working to pass the bill he is increasing highway funding and building a bridge
C understands that by working to pass the bill he is increasing highway funding and creating tax rebates.
Absolutely A, B and C if they had infinite power might push for just their narrow interest but by choosing to join a coalition and often construct the bill they way they did so as to create a coalition they are working towards a broad interest.
Arguably the period of time closer to what you want is the five centuries before when these various groups “standing against the Catholic church” refused to form a coalition. They were genuinely narrow. The political reformers during those five centuries never would have adopted a Luther and created their own personal anti-Pope to give religious legitimacy to their message. The religious reformers never would have cooperated with power and money hungry politicians to fundamentally bring the church and its wealth under the control of the state. And neither would have cooperated with the radical reformers who wanted to upset the entire applecart of feudal civilization.
But when they formed a coalition when they agreed to work together, that’s when they created a counter vision.
____
Similarly with Machen. Machen knew his effects. He understood what the effects of what he was doing were.
LikeLike
CD,
I agree with your accessment here,“if a person does X knowing the effect will be Y, he wills Y. Even if in an ideal world you would prefer Z to Y he still will Y because he acts to create Y.”
But look here at A, B, & C
Mr. A is willing to sacrifice what he narrowly believes is worth the sacrifice to Mr. B and C’s cause.
Mr. B is willing to sacrifice what he narrowly believes is worth the sacrifice to Mr. A and C’s cause.
Mr. C is willing to sacrifice what he narrowly believes is worth the sacrifice to Mr. A and B’s cause.
Each one is fighting for a narrowly perceived greatest achievable good. As a Catholic I have identified myself with a non-sacrificing truth cause. It is all or nothing. This is why we get stuck with the shame of the past, the present sin of Catholics. Having to defend ourselves all the time. We take it on ourselves for what we believe to be Truth. I am sacrificed on the alter of what I believe to be Truth. This is why we are so narrow and say the Church is one and the Truth is universal and never changing and why we call things heresy and those who hold them heretics. People either hold to the truth or they don’t. In our humility to the reelation of Truth we are looked at as proud. In our shame of our unworthiness we are seen as aking ourselves something. We believe we are to sacrifice only and completely ourselves to God. Not to sacrifice any true good for a greater good in the moment. I must say, not that all Catholics do this, but it is the Church’s standard.
About Machen, you will have to broaden what you are saying there. Machen seems to have been a fighter for the truth as he understood it and fought anything that would have compromised that truth and he was unwilling to sacrifice anything for it. That is narrow. And when you have it right, perfectly Good. But even if you don’t have it right it is still good to fight for your truth when you believe you do. God will correct the humble truth fighter in error as He sees fit.
LikeLike
Michael,
But even if you don’t have it right it is still good to fight for your truth when you believe you do.
I do not agree. I must make my life one of constant prayer and continued returning to Gos through study of the Scripture. If I was given brownie points for just trying how I think is best, then what’s the point of studying theology? I seek to be conformed to the image of Christ. I agree that we are all being brought along as God sees fit. But as Machen says in “what is faith,” (to paraphrase), “there is not virtue in ignorance. But much virtue in a knowledge of what God has revealed.”
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Michael —
I’m not sure where to go from here. I’m taking the most clear cut notion of people forming a coalition and you are arguing that even that qualifies as fighting for a narrow truth. Which more or less reduces to “fighting for a narrow truth” applying to all people in all circumstances and thus doesn’t mean much of anything. I now understand your claim about the Reformers but this comes down to you using the word in a very non standard way.
As for the church, the church itself has been part of coalitions and compromises all throughout its history. The church itself doesn’t dispute this. In fact it takes as its very name “Catholic” a repudiation of narrow sectarian groups.
As for Machen not sacrificing… of course he sacrificed. He disliked the people, the fundamentalists, he was forming a coalition with. He had to compromise on Dordt since fundamentalism was mostly Arminian. He saw Liberalism as the lesser evil than Arminianism and sided with Arminians against Liberals. That’s sacrificing one truth for another. That’s compromise. And that sort of thing ain’t unique to Machen either.
LikeLike
CD,
I guess I’m not real sure where we are going from here either. But you are right in what you said here: What we have come to “more or less reduces to “fighting for a narrow truth” applying to all people in all circumstances”.
People just live as absolute believers in all circumstances, even if they try to deny it. People move by what they decide is the greatest good in the moment. The difference in people is how they discern the greatest good. All people live as if they believe in a absolute truth. Even when their truth is that their is no absolute truth, or absolute truth can’t be known, or that the absolute teachings of Christianity can’t be known. Those are absolute truth claims themselves.
LikeLike
Sorry Andrew,
Somehow I missed your post. I’m not speaking of brownie points. I’m speaking of a disposition of the soul to follow the truth. This being in the forefront of the very being of a person is a good thing, even if they at time are following things that have not been fully revealed to them. To go against what they actually believe to be the greatest good is a poor disposition of their very character and being and is worst than following an error with believing it to be true. This disposition of truly following the “their” truth will have the person in the position of receiving the Truth. They will be a person making their ” life one of constant prayer and continued returning to God.”
LikeLike
Michael,
Ok, thanks for clarifying. This made me seek out our standards here and here where we say, The grace of faith…is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened; and yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace.
I’m simply adding on to what you are saying.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike