Speaking of the Land of Chocolate, the lead singer of Jason and the Callers has another defense of the magisterium as he understands it. In it is this assertion:
Because in order to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion in a principled way, some visible body must exist with the authority to do so.
This is a frequent claim by ex-Protestants who go to Rome. Protestantism is in chaos and can’t resolve its divisions. Rome has unity and visibility and this is what you need to overcome Protestant fissiparousness. Possibly.
But who says that we need a visible body to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion (not that Jason makes this distinction very clear since he keeps comparing the “interpretations” of the magisterium to the very revelation they are supposed to be interpreting; in other words, it’s one thing for the Bible to be hard to interpret, it’s another altogether for the visible and principled interpretations not to add up)? I know I am as a Protestant a Bible thumper. But I have no idea where Jason would derive this notion from the pages of Holy Writ (unless he wants to hang everything on Matt. 16 and 18 again and again and again).
For instance, the Old Testament saints had a single, visible authority, the Israelite monarchy, and it lasted for all of David and Solomon before splitting into the northern and southern kingdoms. Let’s not forget that the kings were not exactly models of interpretive fidelity.
Then we have Jesus’ own promise to his disciples in John 16 that when he leaves his Spirit will come who will lead the church into all truth. Curious that with Peter right there, Jesus didn’t say, and rest assured, Peter and his successors will lead you into all truth and rightly divide revelation from interpretation.
And then there is Peter’s own counsel to the church in his second epistle where he constantly warns about the danger of false teachers, and warns, and warns, and warns (pastors considering a series on 2 Peter be warned). If Peter knew what Jason pines for, that a visible body was around to distinguish opinion from revelation, why would he write to your average Simon and Hannah about the need to keep a lookout for false teachers? Why not write the first Christians about God’s great provision of the visible church and its capacity to direct the faithful into all truth?
Jason puts this assertion in a post about how grown ups talk. I wonder if he has considered the difference between childish wishes and adult resignation. I mean, some kids insist that Santa exists. What does that prove?
Old Life 
Rome’s doctrine of the visible marks of the true visible church I guess are not so self-evident. I guess you have to make the grade in paradigm class before you’re able to see them.
LikeLike
“Because in order to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion in a principled way, some visible body must exist with the authority to do so.”
Must?
LikeLike
Equally as spurious is this claim:
“It describes visible believers and visible congregations, plural, but not a single visible church. For example, saying that ‘the visible church’ is ‘all who profess Christ, and their children’ is tantamount to saying that the visible church is just a collection of people who have no visible connection to one another. But if a bunch of severed limbs don’t make a body, a bunch of disconnected believers don’t make a church.”
As you’ve frequently pointed out – Jason seems to be ignoring the rest of RC. It’s like an ivory tower where he can make these pronouncements that these divisions do not exist within RC when he’s not in the real “Ivory Tower” (i.e., Rome). How does he know?
LikeLike
‘Because in order to distinguish between divine revelation and human opinion in a principled way, some visible body must exist with the authority to do so.’
Doesn’t this just mean that whatever the visible body says is divine revelation must be divine revelation? What’s principled about that?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Based on what Jason and other RCs have said, my guess is that to say you need a biblical foundation telling us of this need for a visible infallible authority is to assume sola Scriptura and thus beg the question.
The thing that annoys me is that this whole visible infallible authority to tell us what is divine revelation is a self-defeating argument for Rome. It’s a rather simple self-defeating argument than at that:
RC: Without a principled way to distinguish between divine truth and opinion, you are left without hope of certainty.
Protestant: If that is what is required for certainty, how can you be certain that Rome is the right authority? There’s no independent infallible authority to tell you that.
RC: True, but I’ve looked at the motives of credibility and determined that Rome has the best claim, and I accept that by faith.
Protestant: I accept by faith that the Holy Spirit will guide His church into all truth without requiring the presence of an infallible authority.
RC: But how can you be certain of that without a visible infallible interpreter?
Protestant: But why are you resting your case so strongly on that if you don’t have a visible infallible interpreter to tell you that you made the right choice regarding the visible infallible interpreter that is supposed to give you so much certainty.
RC: Well, after examining the evidence, I made a decision based on faith.
Protestant: But that’s what Protestants do.
RC: Ah, yes, but you don’t have a visible infallible interpreter.
Protestant: But no interpreter told you that Rome was right.
RC: But we discovered the church in the search. You chose the church.
Protestant: Who are you and what have you done with simple logic?
LikeLike
Mixing metaphors:
He digs his heels in further and he buries his head deeper…
LikeLike
Jack – He digs his heels in further and he buries his head deeper…
Erik – Wait till you find out where he’s buried his head…
LikeLike
I had a problem with fissiparousness but they lasered the offending area and it got better.
LikeLike
Is there a condition called prissiparousness or too-clever-by-halfness? I could see the Callerites suffering from either of these conditions.
LikeLike
sesqui-prissy would be 1 and 1/2 times
LikeLike
The name of the game is ‘catch me if you can'(brilliance to whomever figured that out, among you all).
And us chumps are eating up the entertainment, getting every pennies worth.
Ain’t the interwebs swell?
Thanks, Darryl.
LikeLike
Yes, it is interesting that when Jesus interacts with the Pharisees the dialog frequently runs something like: your tradition says X, but the scriptures clearly teach ~X. But how could Jesus appeal to scripture over tradition if that tradition bequeathed the scripture? IOW, the Jesuit criticism of protestants seems also to apply to Judaism. Thus I reject the premise that a visible church with the authority and ability to deliver an infallible interpretation of scripture is necessary.
LikeLike
Somewhere at the end of all this is the truth, and it’s not what the RC apologists want to argue or the Jack Chick protestants want to portray. It’s primarily a medieval institution with a lot of resulting history and baggage and even truth which ran into the buzz saw of modernity and is grappling to realize what it is now in light of it. What it’s not, unfortunately, is a bastion of apostolic orthodoxy.
LikeLike
DeYoung and Russel Moore have an interesting approach to the “corporate” nature of “sanctification” in their Piper conferences essays collected Acting the Miracle: God’s Work and Ours in the Mystery of Sanctification, Crossway, 2013
Piper: hedonism is the only motive for living the Christian life
Tullian: being thankful for justification is the only motive for living the Christian life
DeYoung: The Bible has many different motives.
Piper: hedonism is not the only motive, but it is always the motive (like union is always the basis of all the rest)
Tullian: I am not sure what the difference is between “only” and “always”. But unbelief of the gospel of justification is always the reason for sin.
DeYoung: One of the motives is fear over not enough evidence to convince your visible church that you are now persevering and making enough effort for final salvation. Most of the threats about hell in the NT are directed to professing Christians.
mark: But which visible church is “your church”? Since Christendom is over, not everybody in the parish is in one visible church. But what good is the “evidence” (that you are going to be justified) if the keys of the kingdom are being held by a voluntary church you chose for yourself? If “your church” decides you are not making enough effort, couldn’t you just shop for anther visible church which will agree with you (not only that you are doing as well as others in your church, but also that your doing is one factor in the maintenance of your assurance).
David Mathis, introduction to Acting the Miracle, p 18
“Then have we found our silver bullet? Might union with Christ be the holy grail? Here’s the hitch. Union with Christ ends up being a very nondescript way of talking….It’s a glorious generality, but it doesn’t carry inherently the specificity of its various aspects–regeneration, justification, sanctification, adoption, glorification.”
LikeLike
Sean, my thing, is that finding the truth on the internet is silly. The bloggers here are authors. I understand. Having attended a Roman Catholic wedding over the weekend fleshed out some of what I read out here. Worse than I thought, dude. We all ought to visit our local cathedral and report back pr findings. On second thought, let’s not, and say we did.
Later.
LikeLike
Andrew, I’m glad you went. Nothing like checking it out for yourself.
LikeLike
It’s just Christianism run by the clergy club.
It’s tailor made for just the sort of people that Jesus had all the trouble with…self-obsessed religious ladder climbers.
Jason is a PERFECT fit.
LikeLike
Steve Martin,
That is quite the snarky comment about Jason Stellman, coming from a person who continually, wherever I have seen him comment on the internet, mentions how little he focuses on himself and his efforts in the process of salvation and sanctification. If you really don’t focus on yourself that much, then it would seem that you wouldn’t need to keep reminding us of the fact, and comparing yourself, positively, to those whom you (mis)perceive to be focusing on themselves too much.
LikeLike
I didn’t think I made a comment about myself, at all, Christopher Lake.
If you believe that Rome is not a semi-Pelagain religious system where the clergy are the ‘real’ Christians, then just say so.
I have interacted with Jason plenty enough to know that he belongs in a religious system like that. For all I know, maybe you do, too.
LikeLike
If no universal visible church with marks of ordination and sacrament, then no real presence or absolution “for you”.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-valid-is-the-consecration-of-the-bread-and-wine-in-a-lutheran-or-episcopal-holy-e
LikeLike
Mark, it’s a better question. Never mind the supposed schismatic nature of protestantism, how much disunity and schism has Rome caused by claiming for itself sole inviolable cultic status.
LikeLike
Sean and Mark,
But RCs accept Protestant baptisms and call us separated brethren, which makes no sense to me if our churches really are invalid.
Seems to me that Rome is trying to have it both ways. In some ways, it wants to maintain itself as the only true church but in others it wants to capitulate to relativistic views of truth and error and give everybody a path up the mountain to God.
LikeLike
Robert, I was thinking historically and even within the context of Trad catholics like CtC. Rome is in a box and whereas Ratzinger leaned toward fortifying the perimeter including an ecumenism that hearkened back to Vat I exclusivisity, Frances is more the type of Vat II ecumenist you cite in your ‘separated brethren’ comment. Ratzinger knows the truth of what Frances is doing, but couldn’t bring himself to do what Frances knows has to be done.
Rome can’t survive economically or vocationally on the back of the trads, this is the why of Vat II in the first place. Modernity happened, you either adapt or die. When Ratzinger couldn’t control his own butler much less the Curia and even less a billion or so of the faithful, he quit. The Anglo-catholics are a nice infusion of true-believerism but you can’t live off that tiny segment. If Frances raises catholic social conscience to the level that Ratzinger emphasized dogma you’ll see some SSPX type of defections from the CtC brand. Particularly if he reverses the course on the Latin-Rite resurgence, which he’s starting to do and has done with the Franciscan Friars.
LikeLike
robert: But RCs accept Protestant baptisms and call us separated brethren, which makes no sense to me if our churches really are invalid.
mark: At the risk of Zrim calling me a “reverse Romanist”, I see this same problem when Reformed churches accept the water of Rome without agreeing that Rome still has the marks of a true church. But of course Calvin had to land in that “middle” or actually agree that he not yet been properly baptized with water. But what’s the excuse/reason today?
Do you know any Lutherans who bow before the real presence? They should?
DeYoung: One of the motives for living the Christian life is fear about not having enough evidence to convince your visible church that you are now persevering and making enough effort for final salvation. Most of the threats about hell in the NT are directed to professing Christians.
LikeLike
Sean,
Exactly, though I’ve never thought about V2 being motivated in part by financial concerns. Not that it surprises me of course. After all, Rome’s financial needs prompted the Reformation. Thank you, Tetzel.
This is why the C2C apologetic is so strange. I don’t know how you can truly be an ultra-traditionalist RC post Vatican 2 unless you really don’t care much about theology and only want to make sure you get the ritual right (but then how can one qualify as an ultra traditionalist?). It’s so obvious that the Rome of today is not the Rome of Vatican I, but there is a strain of unthinking fundamentalism among these C2C types that just can’t see it.
I just don’t see the point of believing that Rome is the “church Christ founded” when even Rome herself doesn’t seem all that sure about it anymore.
LikeLike
Mark,
I struggle with the validity of RC baptisms myself, but since my church accepts them I defer to their judgment, especially since they’ve studied the matter more than me. And C2C says I’m an ecclesiastical deist!
LikeLike
Robert, they’ve gotten away with it by largely discounting the entire generation post Vat II, clergy and laity both, who don’t imbibe their interpretation and conclusions. Everyone, but them, are heterodox or nominal catholics. They(CtC) are the true RC. It reminds me of those fundamentalist protestants whose church is ‘going back to Acts’, or the KJV only or other such soloists.
LikeLike
mark: At the risk of Zrim calling me a “reverse Romanist”, I see this same problem when Reformed churches accept the water of Rome without agreeing that Rome still has the marks of a true church. But of course Calvin had to land in that “middle” or actually agree that he not yet been properly baptized with water. But what’s the excuse/reason today?
Mark — the form of baptism — Trinitarian — was something that was a hot issue in the early church. In the third century, especially, it was customary to accept baptisms even if performed by heretics (not sure how that would come about” if they were made “in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit”. That accounts for Rome’s acceptance of Protestant baptisms. I can’t really speak of Calvin’s reasoning, but it may have something to do with that.
LikeLike
C. N Willborn: : most American Presbyterians confessionally uphold the principle of the spirituality of the church, deny Constantinianism, and do not acknowledge that the Civil Magistrate has the power to prosecute for heresy, maintain the order of the church, call synods and so forth. They changed their version of the WCF to reflect that belief. This change better reflects the true teaching of the Bible. The 1648 version of the Westminster Standards reflected not the teaching of the bible regarding the civil magistrate, but the lingering presence of Constantinianism within the church of Christ. So too, I believe that the overwhelming decision of the 1845 Old School GA better reflects the true teaching of the bible regarding Roman Catholic baptism.
http://biblebased.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/are-roman-catholic-baptisms-valid/
LikeLike
Mark, that is an awesome link.
LikeLike
Just saw one RC on Jason’s blog say that the pronouncements of the Magisterium are clearer than the Bible. I guess we should give him points for consistency. Of course, why read the Bible at all then?
LikeLike
………………. Of course, why read the Bible at all then?
Sean: We never did.
LikeLike
Steve,
The fact that you say that Jason is a “PERFECT FIT” (your caps, not mine) for a “religious system” which you describe as “Christianism run by the clergy club” and as being “tailor-made for self-obsessed religious ladder climbers”…. your words speak volumes about your attitude toward him and about your comparatively positive view of yourself. Need I even point out that you are implicitly, but quite obviously, comparing yourself (and your Lutheran faith), positively, to Jason (and his Catholic faith)? It wouldn’t have been so offensive if the comparison hadn’t come off in such a self-righteous and snarky way, but it did, and I felt the need to speak up about it. I am far from the only person who has noted your unhelpful tone on many sites where you have commented. Up to this point though, I have chosen to hold my tongue about it.
As for what faith I profess, I am a Catholic. The Church condemned Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism long, long ago. As for the clergy being the “real Christians” in Catholicism, I am just as much of a Christian as the Pope or any priest. That is Catholic teaching, based in Scripture. I could say much more, but I’m sick, and I should be resting. This will be my last comment here.
LikeLike
Hey, that’s my line!
Thanks for stopping by, Chris. You are a man after my own heart with that as your sign-off.
Cherrio!
LikeLike
Christopher, but what your holy father done for you lately? Can you say universalism?
LikeLike
Christopher, but what your holy father done for you lately? Can you say universalism?
And Christopher said?… http://youtu.be/5NNOrp_83RU
LikeLike
Christopher Lake,
I have read quite a bit of what jason has written regarding the Christian faith. I know Catholic doctrine, very well (I was a Catholic for 30+ years).
My attitude is towards the ‘different gospel’ which he espouses. I am quite sure he is a swell guy. But when we encounter Christians (I have never once said that he isn’t) who promote a co-op religionist Christianism, we have a duty to call them on it. While they (he) may be Christians, what comes out of their mouths is not. And there is a danger in that co-op stuff if we are to believe St. Paul. so when we don’t all join hands and pat each other on the back, there’s a very good reason for it.
LikeLike
Christopher lake,
I hope you get well soon, friend.
Sincerely.
LikeLike
Christopher,
Listen to this (only 9 min.) while you are getting well;
[audio src="http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/adding-just-a-little-bit.mp3" /]
You may hear some interesting and new ideas. And you’ll hear some points of agreement.
LikeLike
Man, I was worried for a moment.
All the banging on Bill Evans.
What was next?
Would we be told that Miles Davis was a racist pimp and MLK taught JFK and Joe Biden all he knew about adultery and plagiarism?
But such horrors were not to be, we’re back sighting in on romanism.
Good, I can breath a sigh of relief.
Over at the site which is ignorant that implicit faith is one of romanism’s fundamental theological working principles (which is probably a good thing, it would put them out of business) they keep telling us we need to have a infallible authority to decide things, i.e. settle questions of opinion. You “know”, the latter of which is what only prots can have; never truth with a capitol T.
But then the question becomes how can we “know” this authority is infallible? Or better, how can we infallibly know that this is an infallible authority?
Ummm…. there’s this thing called MOC, motives of credibility.
IOW in the typical bait and switch, our sophomores are essentially appealing to . . . private judgment.
But that’s OK, because once you (fallibly?) determine/agree that the infallible authority is what the fallible newbs tell you it is, you rest easy in its pronouncements and sign off on the private judgment thing.
Except when you have to turn it on again briefly to determine whether it’s Benedict, Francis, Catholic Answers or Jimmy Akin speaking.
But that doesn’t count.
But if we can never truly know truth – which is why we need an infallible magisterium – how can we be sure we got the right magisterium?
Oh, vicious circle, MOC again.
Right.
As has been pointed out before, this is a system that operates without the Holy Spirit.
When Christ ascended, while the Holy Spirit may have helped the apostles inscripturate the apostolic tradition in the NT and while the Spirit definitely enabled the church in Acts to speak in tongues, after that it’s zippo. Nada. Nothing.
Entrance stage right . . . . CtC.
West.Confession of Faith I:IV.
The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
(2 Pet. 1:19,21,2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13 )
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.(1 Tim. 3:15, 1 John 2:20, John 16:13,14, 1 Cor. 2:10,11, Isa. 59:21)
LikeLike
CL, not only did you bail from the discussion over at Beggars All some time ago (for medical reasons, but you’re back here), which leaves your professed desire to learn anything about the prot answers to romanism under a cloud, Jase ain’t earned anybody’s respect for his due diligence researching the same.
Beginning with his for all practical purposes repudiation of WCF 1:9 and reading the preliminary Romans 2 as the thesis of the entire epistle, never mind the declaration in 1:18.
But if all you read is the innurnet, it sounds good.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, millions of Roman Catholics in this country exercise their private judgment to buck the Magisterium on issues including contraception and abortion…
LikeLike
Maybe this is off topic, but reading about Jason and the Callers’ views on the RCC and its great unity, etc, I wondered what they make of “cafeteria Catholics.” How do the large numbers of Catholics who pick and choose what parts of the church doctrine they want to follow fit into their view of the church?
LikeLike
RGM,
As near as I can tell, cafeteria RC is irrelevant to these guys. Their recent response to it is, “well, any body can have people in it that disagree with the official teaching.”
Fair enough on that point; Protestants have cafeteria Protestants as well. However, the problem is this be-all and end-all solution that the Magisterium is supposed to provide. Rome claims to provide infallible dogma, but I just have to question how seriously they take this because they don’t discipline their cafeteria RCs. At least in the PCA, OPC, Reformed Baptist churches there is an attempt to discipline heretics. Seems like we really care if people affirm our fallible doctrines and decrees. One of Dr. Hart’s points is the failure of CTC to be upfront about the divisions within RC. They promote this radical skepticism and disunity among Protestantism and tout the Magisterium as the be-all and end-all solution, but if we find the same disunity among RCs, what good is the solution? It would be like me claiming that the be all and end all solution to my problems is to declare infallibly that I’m the president. But if I can’t or won’t make others conform to that decree, it’s just a paper tiger.
For Jason and the Callers, all that really matters is the theory. As long as some visible body potentially, somewhere, somehow has the ability to settle disagreements, it does not really matter if the disagreements are actually settled. It does not matter if RC statements are vague and open to a wide variety of interpretations. Someday, somewhere, the church MIGHT clarify things. It doesn’t matter if once that happens you still have RCs exercising private interpretation and coming to conclusions that are different because someday, somewhere, the bishops might give the definitive interpretation (which must then be interpreted, ad nauseum). It doesn’t matter that a settled matter is unclear and that Rome allows for contradictory opinions to be held among its members with no consequences. Someday, somewhere, somebody knows the truth and that’s all that matters.
It’s a very theoretical, abstract, and pastorally unhelpful approach to theology. Which is why it is no surprise that virtually all the guys at CTC are philosophers who engage in wordy speculation and fine distinctions that anyone with just a bit of life experience in ministry can see will never answer the questions of most laypeople. Jason, as a former pastor, should know better, however.
For these guys, as with Romanism as a whole, the only thing that matters is that the only effort you need to find a church is to find the biggest body of professing Christians that has a bishop who can somehow trace a line of succession back to Peter. This is supposed to be easier than discerning the marks of the church from Scripture, which is simply ridiculous. You don’t need a whole lot of understanding to read the Bible and see the importance of corporate prayer, the centrality of Scripture, and simple facts such as praying to creatures is idolatry. You need a PhD in history and familiarity with a score of original sources to even discern whether a line of succession is true and which version of it is right, since there are conflicts.
All that matters for them is that you have a visible church that everybody stays a part of. That’s all that really matters to most RCs, it seems. The extreme conservatives and extreme liberals can all agree that you have to go to mass on Sundays and that no matter how bad things get, you don’t leave the RC church. It’s a veneer of visible unity and peace that masks a great deal of underlying division and war.
For these guys, being able to say “peace” is enough. Apparently they’ve forgotten the importance of peace and PURITY. It’s interesting that you don’t find any of them mounting a campaign to get the RCs who appoint lesbian pagans to professorships in RC institutions disciplined or even publicly rebuked. It’s interesting that you don’t find any of them calling for the local parish to actually try and enforce the church’s supposedly infallible teaching on birth control and abortion.
All that matters is that you can sign off “In the peace of…” while making war on Protestantism.
LikeLike
RGM, they don’t seem to care about reality. It’s the theory to which they cling and that gives them that superior air. Our theory is chopped liver because not every Protestant holds to it.
Hey, wait a minute.
LikeLike
Fascinating. Pope Francis unplugged. http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview
I still think he ends up a moderate but the direction of Benedict is over. Here comes at least a halfway measure to Vat II
……….The pope also warns against a “restorationist” mentality in Catholicism and insists that “thinking with the church” cannot mean solely thinking with the hierarchy. Francis also pointedly says, “I have never been a right-winger.”
The Second Vatican Council
“What did the Second Vatican Council accomplish?” I ask.
“Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture,” says the pope. “Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible. Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo. I think the decision of Pope Benedict [his decision of July 7, 2007, to allow a wider use of the Tridentine Mass] was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.”
“The dicasteries of the Roman Curia are at the service of the pope and the bishops,” he says. “They must help both the particular churches and the bishops’ conferences. They are instruments of help. In some cases, however, when they are not functioning well, they run the risk of becoming institutions of censorship. It is amazing to see the denunciations for lack of orthodoxy that come to Rome. I think the cases should be investigated by the local bishops’ conferences, which can get valuable assistance from Rome. These cases, in fact, are much better dealt with locally. The Roman congregations are mediators; they are not middlemen or managers.”…………….
On June 29, during the ceremony of the blessing and imposition of the pallium on 34 metropolitan archbishops, Pope Francis spoke about “the path of collegiality” as the road that can lead the church to “grow in harmony with the service of primacy.” So I ask: “How can we reconcile in harmony Petrine primacy and collegiality? Which roads are feasible also from an ecumenical perspective?”
……………..The pope responds, “We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope. Synodality should be lived at various levels. Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic. This will also have ecumenical value, especially with our Orthodox brethren. From them we can learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality. The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time. In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us. I want to continue the discussion that was begun in 2007 by the joint [Catholic–Orthodox] commission on how to exercise the Petrine primacy, which led to the signing of the Ravenna Document. We must continue on this path.”
…………………………………..The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow
…………………“The consistories [of cardinals], the synods [of bishops] are, for example, important places to make real and active this consultation. We must, however, give them a less rigid form. I do not want token consultations, but real consultations. The consultation group of eight cardinals, this ‘outsider’ advisory group, is not only my decision, but it is the result of the will of the cardinals, as it was expressed in the general congregations before the conclave. And I want to see that this is a real, not ceremonial consultation.”
I ask, “So if the encounter with God is not an ‘empirical eureka,’ and if it is a journey that sees with the eyes of history, then we can also make mistakes?”
The pope replies: “Yes, in this quest to seek and find God in all things there is still an area of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation.
………….“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies. I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else—God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust God.”
…………Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment. Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.
LikeLike
Andrew B., ha! I like your sense of humor– and I admit that you had me pegged about the “last comment” thing, but I truly should be resting, as I’m coughing and wheezing here, while trying to type!
Steve, I’ll check out the link. Thanks– and thanks, too, for your wishes for my physical health. For the record, I do definitely understand the Protestant desire to stand against the so-called “gospel of Rome.” I was a committed Calvinistic Baptist for years and was very, very “anti-Rome”– but from your comments at CTC, you believe that the Reformed are, themselves, much too close to supposed Catholic “self-obsession” too. In that light, it’s interesting to me that you visit Reformed sites and speak harshly of Catholicism and CC converts like Jason! Maybe you think of the Reformed in terms of “the enemy of my greatest (theological) enemy is my friend”? Obviously, I don’t know. I’ve just seen, at CTC and other sites, that you had some pretty harsh words about Calvinism and the Reformed too.
D.G., the Catholic Church does not teach universalism. That is clear from the Catechism’s teaching on salvation, which includes the possibility for of us (including me) to go to Hell through unrepented mortal sin. As for the recent comments of Pope Francis on atheists and salvation, it puzzles me why so many conservative Protestants simply take the “journalism” of the MSM at face value, when it comes to reporting on the Catholic Church– when said Protestants are very keen to doubt the word of the MSM and to investigate (rightly so!) concerning almost any other subject *other* than the Catholic Church.
Bob S., I did some searching, and I do see that I left one conversation at Beggars All, over a year ago, for medical reasons (I had pulled a muscle in my back and was in agony), *after* hanging in for many, many comments– but I also returned to that conversation, if you read further down in the comments. I did allow one of the Reformed commenters to finally have the last word though. Is that wrong, especially after having already replied many times to various people on the thread? http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/06/stuff-you-dont-see-on-catholic-answers.html
For anyone here who doubts my understanding of, and previous commitment to, Calvinistic Protestantism, for years, I was a happy involved member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, where the well-known Reformed Baptist, Mark Dever, preaches. I know, I know– in the view of many Presbyterians, Calvinistic Baptists aren’t “really” Reformed. I can say, though, in their defense, that the bookshelves at CHBC had many more Presbyterian and Puritan books than Baptist ones, and they (the non-Baptist books) were widely read and loved in the congregation! 🙂 I definitely read them!
Moreover, I was so convinced that the “5 Sola’s” of the Reformation, and, specifically, the five points of Calvinism, correctly represented Biblical doctrine that when I later made a geographical move and joined another “9 Marks, CHBC-esque” church in a different state, I was quite concerned. I didn’t hear the sovereignty of God in election and salvation being preached “clearly enough” from the Bible, and I was not shy about about saying so. My passion for Reformation theology was so known to the elders and other members of the church that the resident director of local missions eventually put me in charge of evaluating the evangelistic materials that our church would use, so that I could verify that they were “faithful to Biblical (i.e. Calvinistic) teaching.”
Little did I know, at the time, that I was unwittingly affirming “Biblical” doctrines which are not actually taught in the Bible, other than through Protestant misinterpretation of the texts… but then, to expound in that direction would go down the road of recounting my Catholic “reversion” for the readers here (who likely aren’t interested anyway), *and* I’ve already written more than I had intended, given my weakened (and now, feverish!) condition.
Bob S., and everyone else, sorry, but I really do have to bow out of the thread. You may think I’m copping out, but the reality is, I am sick, and it is a sin not to take care of one’s body (temple of the Holy Spirit), and I’m already far too guilty in that way!
Blessings, separated brethren in Christ, even as I know that many of you can’t reciprocate on the “brethren” part, given that, due to your Reformed heritage’s understanding of the Bible’s teaching, you don’t see me as a brother. I get that too. I thought exactly the same about the “gospel of Rome” and Catholics for years, although I was wrong in doing so. In any event, blessings to all of you.
LikeLike
Chris, for sure, get your rest, and take care of yourself. Your church is apostate, but what else is new? Thanks for proving me right about the last comment thing, and drop by when you feel like lighting up.
Later.
LikeLike
Christopher, have you heard that Roman Catholic conservatives are not happy with Francis? http://ncronline.org/blogs/right-wing-complainers-about-pope-francis-need-understand-whos-healthy
Don’t shoot the messenger. Your holy father is generating news and it’s not good for all those claiming the papacy is going to lead us into all truth. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?_r=0
LikeLike
Yeah, let’s get it right.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches inclusivism, which is a word that allows RC to teach universalism and still pretend it hasn’t changed it’s doctrine.
LikeLike
Yo CL, it’s always funny how the romanists assume they are perspicuous and Scripture isn’t, if not their argument (i.e. assertion) that Scripture doesn’t teach something.
You know. Yada, yada, yada. ‘SS isn’t taught in Scripture (Jase and Bryan avoid 2 Tim 3:17 like Dracula avoids stakes all the while claiming v. 16 doesn’t teach what nobody claims they claim it teaches and so on) I used to be a reformed protestant etc.’
But if you were
1. you would know the real confessional doctrines , not the straw men.
2. You wouldn’t have to repeatedly and vociferously tell us you understand them.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I gotta go. My back hurts/I gotta play golf/ it’s more fun reading the comments at CtC on like why the rosary is Christocentric.
(Huh? DTKing used to talk about “Name it, claim it” theology, but I lean more to the idea of the “Power of Positive Assertion” myself. If the Mormons can baptize the dead, CtC ought to be able to claim Dale Carnegie as one of their own)
ciao
LikeLike