You are not going to find much on the contemporary Roman Catholic Church in Jason and the Callers’ rifling through the early church fathers. Maybe for good reason since Pope Francis has apparently opened the old fault lines of Vatican II within the U.S. hierarchy (at least):
The election of Pope Francis in March heralded a season of surprises for the Catholic church, but perhaps none so unexpected — and unsettling for conservatives — as the re-emergence of the late Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin as a model for the American Catholic future.
While there is no indication that Francis knows the writings of Bernardin, who died in 1996, many say the pope’s remarks repeatedly evoke Bernardin’s signature teachings on the “consistent ethic of life” — the view that church doctrine champions the poor and vulnerable from womb to tomb — and on finding “common ground” to heal divisions in the church.
Ironically, the re-emergence of Bernardin — a man who was admired by a young Chicago organizer named Barack Obama — is exposing the very rifts he sought to bridge, especially among conservatives who thought his broad view of Catholicism was buried with him in Mount Carmel Cemetery outside Chicago.
Francis, for example, repeatedly stresses economic justice and care for the poor as priorities for Catholics, and he warned that the church has become “obsessed” with a few issues, such as abortion, contraception and homosexuality, and needs a “new balance.”
The new pope has also sought to steer the hierarchy away from conservative politics and toward a broad-based view of Catholicism “that is not just top-down but also horizontal” — focused on dialogue in the church and with the wider world.
“Please do not let up, as you fill our cups with hope as well as knowledge.”
“The point that (Bernardin’s) consistent ethic makes is exactly the same point that Pope Francis is making — let’s look at the whole picture and not just focus almost exclusively on three or so issues,” said Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, N.M., who had been close friends with Bernardin since the 1970s.
“I certainly think that if Cardinal Bernardin were alive he would be very pleased with what Pope Francis is saying and doing,” echoed Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza, retired archbishop of Galveston-Houston, whose 1998-2001 term as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was seen as one of the last in the mold of Bernardin. . . .
Several other bishops, church officials and observers agreed. But if those assessments are manna to Catholics hungry for a new direction in the church, they are anathema to conservatives who believe Bernardin epitomized everything that was wrong with the U.S. church before Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI pushed the hierarchy to the right.
“The Bernardin Era is over and the Bernardin Machine is no more,” the conservative writer George Weigel wrote in the journal First Things in a 2011 essay that trumpeted the end of a time “in which a liberal consensus dominated both the internal life of the Church and the Church’s address to public policy.”
The fact that Weigel and others would still be driving a stake through the heart of Bernardin’s legacy — as Peter Steinfels put it in a rejoinder in Commonweal magazine — 15 years after his death is a testimony to the stature Bernardin once had, and the angst he can still inspire.
In fact, a generation ago, Bernardin was viewed as the quintessential American churchman — a longtime president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and then its resident wise man, coaxing the hierarchy into approving landmark documents on war and poverty that shaped the public debate on faith in America.
Yet the “John Paul II bishops” who came to power in the 1980s and beyond saw Bernardin’s style and views as too accommodating and too reluctant to mount the barricades on behalf of a more assertive Catholic identity marked by a few hallmark issues rather than a spectrum of teachings.
So just when Jason and the Callers thought they had escaped the unsatisfying clutches of Protestantism, they entered a communion riven by the same kind of divisions that characterized the modernist-fundamentalist controversy. One side wants the church to continue to adapt to the modern world (as Vatican II taught) and the other, like neo-conservatives mugged by the reality of liberal change, wants to put the brakes on adaptation by stressing fundamental markers of Christian identity. Both sides are a long way from early church fathers in which Jason and the Callers have buried their heads.
Old Life 
Perhaps, someone will take pity upon them and give them a time machine? It might finally open their eyes to their folly. There are no perfect theologians, churches, or eras.
LikeLike
Yes and when the controversy hits a fever pitch the magesterium can make a few definitive pronouncements and the Church will know what’s what…… As opposed to Protestantism which always recommends a split. Reminiscent of the woman who always gives her friends the “advice” to just get a divorce and move on! That is Protestantism in a nut shell. The bitter divorcee who projects her insecurities onto everyone else
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Unless, as you’ve lamented on Jason’s blog, the liberals sneak into the council like they did at Vatican II and introduce all manner of confusion with vaguely worded statements that anyone can take any which way. But as long as there’s enough visible unity, I guess it doesn’t matter that heresy is tolerated and embraced.
May Francis’ confusion continue that many will flee the false Roman gospel!!
LikeLike
Wow, Kenneth. Tell us how you really feel (insert winky emoticon here).
LikeLike
Darryl, your source–the liberal National Catholic Reporter v. conservative George Weigel [National Review, First Things], et al., is hardly the stuff of schism, of 95 Theses.
Surely not of the gravity of the ecclesiastical trial by their own Presbyterian church of one J. Gresham Machen [convicted] or even Peter Leithart [acquitted].
Now, what would be probative–and we will never know–is what Benedict XVI and Francis I think of each other. Outsiders see what they want to see, and what they most want to see is division. But the difference between Benedict and Francis may be one of emphasis–doctrinal vs. pastoral, internal vs. external—not disagreement about either.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/730/the_failure_of_liberal_catholicism.aspx#.Um8JFXCc-4o
[With Catholics like this who needs Darryl G. Hart? Heh heh.]
However, there’s no reason at the present time to conclude that “liberal” Pope Francis is in much agreement with the writership and readership of the National Catholic Reporter. Its circulation of 33,000 might seem like a big deal to a member of a Protestant sect with only 30,000 or so members itself, but on the Roman Catholic scale of millions in America and billions worldwide, this is a hair on the blemish on the pimple on the pope’s
LikeLike
Tom, was there a point to all that, except to attack the church I belong to, based on nothing more than our membership figures? Just curious. Regards, Andrew
LikeLike
Come on Kenneth.
Lighten up or go in for therapy.
IOW I sense a hurt and deeply wounded spirit.
After all, you were lutheran and you converted and nobody cares. No celibrity hood for you, not even the self promotion of Jase and Bryan. Hey, it has to hurt?I feel your pain.
The cradle catlicks (sic) just go to mass to get it over with and aren’t really interested in meeting and greeting. So you are over here kvetching/bitching looking for attention, albeit negative.
But the point is again, the lutherans didn’t reform on worship and government of the church. Luther nailed the doctrine of justification by faith alone so hard it still stings to read his commentary on Galatians, but then he also got after Karlstadt who wanted to remove the images form the church.
But tell me, can you name any apostles who were into image worship, let alone Mary worship who left us the inspired version of their tradition/teachings in the NT? No.
Well, yeah, then I can understand your animosity toward private judgement and the protestants who laugh at your commitment to little papa and his holy church.
Face it. They’re swine and you need to take your pearls of implicit and stupefying faith elsewhere.
cheers,
LikeLike
Thanks for stepping up and taking one for the team to even bother trying to figure out what he was talking about, AB…
LikeLike
Robert,
Yes but there remains in principle a means to know what teaching is right and which is wrong. An infallible referee to make the call. V2 was silly, you know my stance on that by now, but overall the philosophical authority structure of the RCC is far superior and reassuring…. Even in times of crises!
Andrew,
sorry man that’s just how I roll! Haha what’s up with the “insert emoticon here” thing? I’m seeing that all over this place. At first I thought it was an html code gone horribly wrong
LikeLike
Kenneth, it’s just silliness, like your church’s most recent council, eh? Welcome to a place where protestants hang, and emoticons are out of order. Chew us out all you want, we know the drill. Your church is apostate, and we are heretics, yadda yadda yadda. Or, wait, has Francis given even such as us a pass? If you don’t like V2, I can only imagine your position on Francis……
Take care, and enjoy your stay.
LikeLike
Bob S.
LOL! Very nice psycho-analysis! Are you in touch with my therapist? I am impressed.
I am sorry that my comment hit a chord. If you are going to be so sensitive I can put on my pretty white ecumenical gloves and invite you out to dinner and a movie? Your paying though…
Dis one of the twelve write Luke? Mark? Can you name any one in the 1st century who had 66 books collected into a book called the “bible”? No? Are you still reading that “fallible collection of infallible books”? You say that IM the one with stupefying faith! Puhlease
LikeLike
Yep, Kenneth.
Stupefying.
As in ‘let God be true, but every man a liar, what saith the scripture’? Rom. 3:4, 4:3
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. Ps. 115:4 -8
IOW the prophetic verdict for idols and those who worship them, which the apostolic tradition did not lift, but rather enforced.
Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thess. 2:10-12
Luke was a companion of Paul, Mark of Peter. It’s not tough, but then again when you have been given over only popery is good enough.
It won’t be on that day.
LikeLike
This is hilarious. Francis is rocking it like a boss, I have expressed nothing but sheer admiration of him. You can keep looking for buyer’s remorse, but you’ll not find it in anything I have said or written.
Nice try, though.
LikeLike
Tom, and exactly how big is the communion to which you belong?
LikeLike
Jason, I know, I know. It’s a wonderful day in the neighborhood except that your Mr. Rogers is hardly the guy who is going to prevent the confusion that you so wanted to leave. Hilarious indeed.
LikeLike
Jason, such sheer fanboyism is beneath you.
LikeLike
“Francis is rocking it like a boss, I have expressed nothing but sheer admiration of him.”
Of course.
That’s what good little religionists do.
And, by the way, God hates religion (that which ‘we do’ to ascend in spirituality). Religion becomes the monstrosity that the Catholic Church is and creates people who are not able to criticize their own. And a clergy club mired in church politics and appearances of piety.
LikeLike
I suppose Rome is the ecclesial equivalent of the Apple Store — always awesome, just gets better, can’t do wrong. Well, wait until Bergoglio gets through writing code for the new OS. You may not like the new product. But you will.
LikeLike
That’s a hell of a crew. TVD chimes in from the peanut gallery at the bistro across the street without a ticket to the hall, Kenneth is doing his personal pope routine, overruling JPII, Benedict and Francis as to silliness of Vat II, and the newly minted RC apologist with a year under his belt in the culturally appraised communion which he wasn’t around to culturally appraise but nevertheless hung his shingle of expertise, is sounding forth his assessment. I’m overwhelmed.
LikeLike
Jason, if my pastor spoke the way your’s has and does, we most certainly have principled means to deal with it. So far, I’ve seen none of that from your church. Of course, who criticize the vicar of Christ? We’re engaged in discussions here at least stemming back from the 1300’s (I used to think 1500s with Luther, bit it turns out, conciliarism goes way back, thanks to Darryl for introdcuing Oakley to us readers here at OLTS).
You oughtta hang here more often. That avatar alone should mean you’ve got a grasp of the lay of the land here. And in case you haven’t noticed, we don’t care about buyers remorse or which church YOU go to. But your words on your blog kind grate us, now and again. So we sa away So it’s about the issues, not us mere people.
Take care.
LikeLike
via Lutheran Lily from another thread — Frank the Hippie Pope:
LikeLike
That’s some chutzpah. The none historian historian without a dog in the fight, literally, is gonna try to marginalize the dominant pastoral interpretation over the past 50 years, which is not even in dispute among the trad opponents, that’s why they’re opponents of it, with a comparison of First Things to NCR?! Well hell, never mind Bultmann and the German higher critics textbooks at the formation centers, the catholic social teaching emanating forth from ND, Georgetown, Boston College, the pontifical college in Germany, the Gregorian University in Rome, and the Institute Catholique at the Sorbonne in Paris, just to make sure, they don’t know shiite anyway, just dollop them on top of NCR, cuz, they’re all just bad, not real catholics, religious maybe, ordained sure, holding forth priestly charism, ok, but still just bad catholics. The three wise monkeys are blushing at that one.
That’s some Jimmy Swaggart, snake oil, “trust me I know” kind of hubris. The internet is great.
LikeLike
Lol @ the ecclesial apple store!
Sean,
the implementation of V2 was silly. The council documents are just fine. The Holy Spirit doesn’t call councils He merely protects them from.error. Councils aren’t God breathed a la s scripture. The council fathers are not.super oracles of wisdom. They simply possess the charism of infallibility. If I was being my own personal pope that would make me….. Well…. You.
I think we will eventually have ample evidence that Pope Francis will uphold the Church’s doctrine quite well. He speaks far more often of the Devil and of confession than previous Popes and he excommunicated ex-Father Greg Reynolds for the same sex stuff. His off-the-cuff interview style has been a PR nightmare but he will learn. He is only in His first year. I wouldn’t have a clue how to handle the media if everyone stuck a mix.in my face and then hung on my every word would you? Those are difficult waters to navigate.
LikeLike
Sean,
Another thing I don’t get. We’re told by lay apologists that it doesn’t matter when RC institutions appoint heretical priests and theologians because they are not the Magisterium, but then they want us to believe the Magisterium has the means “in principle” to tell us that we shouldn’t listen to these people. But by turning a blind eye are they not telling us it is okay to listen to them?
And then there’s the whole emphasis on the visible church. We’re told again and again that the visible church is the sacrament of salvation and that Protestants don’t really have a visible church. But since V2 at least, one does not need to be a conscious member of the RC visible church to be saved because of the whole anonymous-Christian-is-invisibly-connected-to-the-sacramental-visible-church thing and all. But then why make such a big deal about the importance of the visible church if we’re all a part of it anyway?
If the whole “principled distinction” thing is the schtick to follow, aren’t the lay apologists ruining their own apologetic? I mean, the Vatican really doesn’t care if I remain Presbyterian as long as I live a halfway decent life.
If only I had a principled means to tell me who was right…
LikeLike
Kenneth,
If the pope can’t answer a simple question as to whether atheists will go to heaven with “No, salvation is found only by trusting in Christ and joining his church,” what good is he for Rome?
LikeLike
Kenneth, wait until Francis explains that the devil he was speaking of is capitalism or the “world economic system” — whatever that is. Remember, he said youth unemployment is one of the “most serious” evils. First world cathlicks should get ready for a real shakedown.
LikeLike
Rob,
good morning bud… I’ve already said that his interviews have caused confusion and not just a little anxiety. However, he has a pretty darn solid track record as a loyal son of the Church. I started skeptical but I’m beginning to think he will be a pretty darn.good pope. Peter had his foot in his mouth more than once right? Francis is walking in that tradition I suppose. I think he could still be a smashing success!
LikeLike
Kenneth, at first blush I’m revolving around these tensions;
“the implementation of V2 was silly. The council documents are just fine”
“They simply possess the charism of infallibility.”
And it’s not the infallibility conditioner that strikes me it’s the idea of charism and it’s tie to interpretation exercised ordinarily or extraordinarily and the binding nature of intepretive authority, that’s the why and what for of charism.
Then you take into account Francis’ Jesuit training and liberation theologian indoctrination, and quite frankly nothing Francis has done is surprising or even wrong as far as I can assess. He is who I thought he was. I’m good with Francis, he’s of my training and cradle upbringing.
LikeLike
Chortles,
I doubt it. I think Pope Francis has a heart for the suffering and the poor because of a lifetime of experience in Argentina! Have you ever been to South America? Its a sad sight to see man. To us fat cats poverty doesn’t seem bad…. But its serious business. Of course there are other things worse than poverty…. But I’m not gonna condemn the guy for exaggerating a bit to make the point.
LikeLike
Robert, I have no magic elixir for the philosophical and theological screaming inconsistencies that assail you. I’m with Francis, and I paraphrase; ‘the church isn’t about the eggheads who follow their own tails around all day long’. It’s about serving the poor and destitute and being with the people of God.’ And that’s some extraordinary charism being exercised when he literally holds forth and pontificates. Everyone else can go marinate in their unchartered, internet apologetic charism.
LikeLike
Sean,
There is some tension from time to time when considering the magesterium. Nothing out of the ordinary though. For example, I’m assuming you subscribe to the Chicago statement concerning the inerrancy of scripture? That’s an extremely nuanced doctrine! From a practical standpoint it basically states that there ARE in fact errors in the bible but that there are numerous reasons why this doesn’t effect the doctrine of inerrancy. (thinking of transmission errors, textual variation, etc) When examining our shepherds there is an equal level of nuance required. If you can accept the Chicago statement you really shouldn’t have to hard of a time accepting a little tension every now and again
LikeLike
Kenneth, I have absolutely no problem with nuance and exercising imago dei faculties in line with perspicuity of inscripturated apostolic tradition illumined by the Holy Spirit in assessing theological statements, Dissemination of the faith to the laity by the priestly class by means of priestly charism through the laying on of hands, is something else. And that’s quite some discernment you proscribe for yourself with; “Implementation of Vat II is silly” it’s protestant like in it’s application.
LikeLike
Kenneth, for the record I have been to Honduras which is poorer than Argentina. I believe only Bolivia is supposed to be worse. Even that could melt my cold, Calvinist heart.
LikeLike
*could not melt*
Actually I began to thaw once and stood to close to Sean…instant refreeze.
LikeLike
Chortles,
Cool, so you get it. I’ve always felt that South America could be the new face of Christendom some day. Maybe you should stop chillin with the cold crew and defrost a bit with some good old fashioned Eucharistic adoration! Throw in some Marian devotion and your on your way. I think one of your role models st Augustine made that recommendation.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Honest question here, not being a smart ass.
What percentage of professing Christians “get it” from your perspective? My math could be off, but I’ve honestly tried to calculate it and it would seem that you believe that at least 98% of the professing Christians in the world are deeply confused/misled/ignorant about even the basics of the Christian faith. Besides yourself, it would appear that those you affirm as “orthodox” are an extremely tiny minority. Only 1 out of every 28,000 professing Christians on earth are represented by the OPC. Or, you could say, the OPC represents 0.001428571% of professing Christians. You can’t throw rocks (at everyone) from a little sectarian island just because life off the island is a bit more complicated.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I accept that many are believers when they have barely 1% of decent theology down, if they put all their Blue Chips of Faith on Jesus for their eventual salvation, I accept they are believers.
It doesn’t mean that I will attend and join their church, or give of my firstfruits, or go to them for counsel, or spend quality hours of leisure time reading their theology.
They are believers, but with quickly closing curtains on what I want to do with their faith…
LikeLike
Sean,
Can you try and dumb down the theological lingo a bit. Its early and I don’t want to think that hard.
My statements on the implementation of V2 are CATHOLIC in nature. They would be protestant if I denied some dogma and started up my own little church because I couldnt have my way. The last few popes have all expressed how they accept V2 (as we all do) but they have also commented on its poor reception, virtual councils, liturgical abuses, etc. Being a good catholic doesn’t entail acceptance of every little action and policy the Vatican ever implemented. If that IS what its all about then I guess Aquinas, Joan of Arc, and st Athanasius were all bad Catholics. The Church can err on discipline and make up silly pastoral programs like ecumenism, dialog, etc…. That has nothing to do with infallibility.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The problem isn’t necessarily nuance, but you do recognize that the claims made for infallibility in the Chicago Statement and your claims are different.
The Chicago Statement says that the Bible as originally written cannot err and does not err in anything it teaches including history, practice, theology, pastoral ethics, and so forth. An error in transmission of the text is not an error of teaching but an error of transmission.
Rome claims it cannot err on dogma, and then only when we are told infallibility is being exercised, and then we still don’t have a comprehensive list of infallible decrees from Rome. Even within the context of a infallible doctrinal council such as Trent or Vatican I, we are told that only parts of what is said are infallible.
The difference is this, when the Apostles exercised their Apostolic ministry, they were infallible in all things. Rome says the church is always exercising its Apostolic ministry but that not everything in its Apostolic ministry of teaching is infallible. A pastoral rule is still teaching.
Nuance also needs to take into account the original intent of the authors who promulgated the statement. No amount of Nuance in the world can reconcile Unam Sanctam with V2 because Boniface and most of his successors clearly believed that conscious faith in the Roman Church was necessary for salvation. If they didn’t, there was no need to try and kill Luther, and anathematize His followers.
But that anathema has been lifted. You are right to be concerned about V2. Now you just need to be consistent and either return to Protestantism or join an extreme traditionalist breakaway sect like the SSPX. V2 cannot be reconciled with traditional Roman Catholicism. There’s a reason why liberals love it. It changed Rome on a fundamental level.
LikeLike
Kenneth, all I can really say to you is; “whole heck of a lot of good that priestly charism is doing for most priest and lay catholics the past 50 years.”
“make up silly pastoral programs like ecumenism, dialog, etc….”
That line pretty much says it all. I don’t think your disagreement is with me, but roughly 95% or so of your RC brethren, maybe more in the western world. Reform away. I’ll sit back in my protestant easy chair and watch, maybe help a few of you fill in the blanks where you don’t know. To be honest I’m not to worried about a principled opportunity of infallible charism that never gets exercised. There are however more dominant applications of binding churchly authority that you deem worthy of navigating, so, more power to you. I’m all for the lay exercise of religious conscience as example of lay charism.
LikeLike
What is this? I’ve heard it a couple times now, is that a new phrase? Does it come from videogames? (Like the confrontation with Bowser at the end of each level of Super Mario Bros is the “Boss Fight”?)
LikeLike
Sean, you need a drink. Somewhere in the world it is 5:00.
LikeLike
Darryl, sorry for buttin in here…
Jeremy, you post articles at your online group CtC and you were raised reformed right? And you ask that kind of question? It’d sounds really smart ass, I mean, I could look up the opc q&a that explains branch theory, but, come on. Have you even heard of Naparc?
Take care, I was just a bit shocked by your question.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Kenneth, when Peter stuck his foot in his mouth (but refused to put pork there) Paul rebuked him. Is anyone on your side of the Tiber ever going to rebuke a pope? I dare you. Double dare.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Don’t be shocked. Sectarianism isn’t spoken of lightly in Scripture (1st Corinthians 1:10-17, Ephesians 2, John 17, Galatians 5:20). It’s wickidness. Yet some Reformed people refuse to evil call it sin anymore despite Isaiah’s warning (Isaiah 5:20).
Tell me, if a body of Christians that represents one out of every 28,000 professing Christians on earth is not a sect, then what is?
LikeLike
Jeremy, You’ve heard of Gideon’s Band, right? You’ve read the Bible, right? (maybe you can’t any more.) When was there ever widespread “getting it”? Peter didn’t even get it much of the time. So what is your point?
And for the record, the point of your conversion was that you were going from the confusing goo of Protestantism into the mid-day clarity of Roman Catholic teaching. Now you’re telling me that Rome doesn’t get it either?
BTW, that’s been my point all along — your conversion narrative along with Jason and the Callers is smug (Protestants don’t get it) and unrealistic (Roman Catholics get it).
LikeLike
Rube, it means Francis is going to sing on the next release from U2.
LikeLike
Jeremy, if truth is dictated by membership figures, then sure, you win. Congrats. Really, you are doing a bang up job. Last time you were here, I heard you rejoicing in all the shrinking protestant denominations, with sheep of all kinds flocking to your parish. I mean, come on. You aren’t even talking about the issues that divide us. You’ve hammered home that theme before, and it’s old. I won’t join your church because you have the most people. Romans 3 comes to mind, especially verse 4.
I just expect more from people who are public and write articles like you. You should know better.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
D.G.,
What is a sect? How do you know you’re not in one?
LikeLike
Jeremy, I’m betting that when Peter was pope the church was smaller than 28k. There you go cherry picking again.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Until Reformed folk start seeing sectarianism for the sin that it is, there will be no motive to become free of it. My Reformed friends take sin very seriously. They flee sexual immorality, drunkeness, cheating, ect. Why does this sin not seem to matter?
LikeLike
Jeremy, how do you know you’re not in a big sect? Is it really all about size?
Btw, why not answer the charge about Roman Catholic clarity compared to Protestant confusion. When you point out Protestant problems it’s fine. When I do it I’m sectarian.
You’re not reading Francis, my man. It’s all good between me and the Vatican these days. I try hard. I might even be able to divorce my wife and still go to heaven.
LikeLike
D.G,
Again, what is a sect and how do you know you’re not in one?
LikeLike
D.G.,
Please just answer the question. What is a sect and how do you know you’re not in one? You’re much smarter than me, this should be easy for you.
LikeLike
I suspect the original phrase was “rockin’ it like The Boss.” Time marches on but (aging) rock is here to staaaaaaaaaayyy
LikeLike
Jeremy, is it only the reformed who are under your condemnation? What are you writing in the Jewish blogs lately? You and I share Judaism in our heritage, and that entire religion is a sect, per your view. You need to start looking at the bigger picture and stop drinking you caller koolaid. I appreciate the interaction, but I’ve already posted too much for one day. You”ll find plenty here who want to dialog with you about these important matters. Take care and best regards, Andrew
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Until RC folk start seeing idolatry for the sin that it is, there will be no motive to become free of it. My RC friends take sin very seriously. They flee sexual immorality, drunkeness, cheating, ect. Why does this sin not seem to matter?
LikeLike
Chortle,
I would encourage you to start reading the Catechism to the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
You mean Springsteen?
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Stop bowing down to statues.
Stop (attempting) communicating with the departed.
Stop worshiping a wafer.
Stop giving exclusive divine titles to your pope.
Stop elevating the visual over the aural, when Scripture says the reverse.
Stop being an idolater. And fix your catechism.
Have a nice day!
LikeLike
D.G.,
For any sect to exist, there needs to be a non-sect somewhere. To deny the existence of a “non-sect” makes the very idea of sectarianism meaningless. So either sectarianism is meaningless or a non-sect must exist…which I suspect is why you prefer not to talk about sectarianism.
LikeLike
It is interesting to watch intellectuals try to justify cultic practice that has obviously been tailored for the illiterate, superstitious, and sensual. What Marsh said. And this is not being cute — this is the crux of the matter. Calvin’s biggest problem with your church was not doctrine, it was idolatrous worship. Worship comes first and Rome’s is rotten.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
C’mon man! If you really were Reformed, you would understand that we believe Rome is a sect and that unity does not mean we all report to the same home office in Rome. This is basic Reformed teaching. You might not like it. You might not agree with it. But you should at least understand it.
A sect would be any professing Christian body that does not obey the prophets and the Apostles. That would make Rome a sect. The largest sect of all, to be sure, but still just a sect.
LikeLike
that’s a pretty wide gate that that person is admiring…
LikeLike
Jeremy, I tried again to understand your math, reading your first comment. I dont get your point at all for posting today on oldlife, and if size matters to you, you should become Sunni Muslim, I think, per Wikipedia….
I do think it was big deal for protestants to break away from Rome, but I believe it was right. If you want Darryl’s thoughts on the historical developments leading up to the reformation, I recommend his recent series here on conciliarism, as he chronicled his reading of Francis Oakley’s “The Conciliarist Tradition.” I happen to think you are way off in assigning his motives for his reasons for why he talks about what he does and does not. I’m actually amazed he puts himself out here in a blog, as he does. We are all learning, and he’s done a lit of work. Maybe try gratitude for a change….
Later, Jeremy.
LikeLike
Robert,
What sect doesn’t claim to follow the prophets and the Apostles? EVERY sect believes they are the most orthodox.
Sects are founded by men. It’s the one thing they all have in common. The non-sect must be founded by Christ himself.
LikeLike
The CtC crowd pulls an dishonest move; protestant observable phenomenon registers as philosophical fault line in the coherence of the protestant paradigm, i.e. multiple denominations, relative size et al. equals lack of coherence, or exhibits religious disfavor-God isn’t blessing it, is the, at least implicit, theological import. Abberant observable RCC phenomenon; disagreement, scandal, division, theological incongruence all the way up to papal exercise of charism somehow magically is ad hominen that never legitimately touches the coherence of the internet apologist trad apologetic.
This gets argued all the way down to valuing paradigmatic considerations NOT for their explanatory value(kinda the whole purpose of a philosophical paradigm) but instead they now have a principled distinction that though it is never exercised and isn’t explanatory, functions like a religious melatonin that enables their religious conscience to sleep at night and marvel at the ’roundness’ of a paradigmatic circle that in fact doesn’t explain the reality that it owes it’s very existence to. It’s a good schtick. It’s unhelpful in resolving any ‘real’ theological disagreement and makes mince meat out of ecumenism, but it’s got a hook, and has all the substance of a pop song.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
My church was founded by Jesus Christ, thank you very much.
LikeLike
Robert,
So said Joseph Smith.
I understand. In a spiritual sense everyone believes Jesus founded their Church. But we’re dealing with the God of the Bible who seems to be really into the material world. He’s the one who accomplished redemption (the cross) and applies redemption (sacraments) through physical means.
Did Jesus literally call the founding leaders of your Church, face to face, and give them a mission before he ascended to heaven?
LikeLike
Sean , awesome, as always. Marvel at the roundness indeed.
LikeLike
one disrespectful clown leaves and another one fills right in.
just like clockwork…
LikeLike
Kent, that Jeremy sure likes talking about sects, huh? Say that three times fast (emoticon).
LikeLike
Sarcasm and jokes are generally the game plan at Old Life. Notice D.G.’s response to sectarianism? Joke, dismissal, then silence. No real dialogue. No real answers.
LikeLike
So, Jermemy, what’s you endgame here? Since you assign motives to our host, tell us yours, if you feel like it. We’re just dudes hanging out, and you start off railing on my church. What’ll float your boat for today? I’ll remember to keep it all business with you. Later.
LikeLike
Jeremy —
I gonna score this one for the Reformed. Giving the power and authority that God/the Bible grants to prophets (who are selected exclusively directly by God through the granting of visions) to a church and its officers is precisely “divinizing what is not God”.
LikeLike
@Jeremy
And he didn’t literally call your’s either since your church didn’t exist until the mid 2nd century. Let’s take a simple example:
Peter is the central figure in 1st century Roman Catholic theology, the first Bishop of Rome. In Catholic history Bishop Serapion of Antioch has a congregation in Rhossus which is using the Gospel of Peter. Other churches in the area believe Gospel of Peter is Marcionic and complain. Serapion contacts a Rhossus Docetic church to get a timeline, believing they predate Marcion. Evidently the Catholics and the docetic church are on friendly terms even though Serapion is not docetic. He gets from the entire Petrine corpus and kicks it up the chain of command. How could the Catholic church not have had the Petrine corpus until almost the 3rd century if it were founded by Peter? Why would the status of Peter’s writings not be known? Why does Bishop Serapion need to go to docetic Christians to get the history of Catholic church’s founders?
LikeLike
Robert,
The problem isn’t necessarily nuance, but you do recognize that the claims made for infallibility in the Chicago Statement and your claims are different.
Well, sure, of course they are different! I am just noting the similarity between what an athiest would say about the Chicago statement and what you say about ecclesiastical infallibility. Namely “thats not the definition of infallibility that I THINK should be the case”.
But that anathema has been lifted. You are right to be concerned about V2. Now you just need to be consistent and either return to Protestantism or join an extreme traditionalist breakaway sect like the SSPX. V2 cannot be reconciled with traditional Roman Catholicism. There’s a reason why liberals love it. It changed Rome on a fundamental level.
V2 has been reconciled with Tradition by many of the most critical traditional minded exegetes. Robert Sungenis (whatever you think of the man he can exegete a text), Fr. Harrison, Christopher Ferrera, etc. all harsh critics of the post cocilliar epic and all have no problem with the documents themselves.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Well, since none of the leaders of my church were alive in the first century, then no. But then again, neither was Francis.
BTW, maybe you can answer this question since clearly you want to stress the visible church and define it by a chain of hands we can see in history (as long as we ignore things like the Avignon papacy). If the visible church is the sacrament of salvation, and if God is so concerned to work materially, why can I be saved and not be a member of your visible church? In fact, why can I be saved by following my conscience which screams at me to reject Rome?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
No, that’s not my claim. My claim is that if you are going to claim a three-legged stool, you can’t have a definition of infallibility for one that is not the same for the others. Now, I don’t know where you stand on this, but the fact is modern Rome denies that the Bible is infallible in all it teaches, so I guess you do have the same idea of infallibility for Scripture that you do for the Magisterium. But, point of fact, this denies what the Bible says about itself, not to mention what church history has said about the Bible.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
I’m honestly surprised at how strongly you really want to press the historicity of Jesus establishing the RCC. I’d love to see you make a case here or at CtC. I’ve yet to see anything dealing with the substantive work of scholars who have reached a consensus that Rome did not have a bishop until the later part of the second century. You can read scholars like Raymond Brown, Eamon Duffy, Peter Lampe, Allen Brent, Paul Jewett, etc, etc, etc and none of them will take any of it seriously because nothing in the primary literature supports it.
Have you done the historical reading to substantiate your claims? If not, I think you should do the primary and secondary reading to see if you really want to believe a theology and apologetic that is built on demonstrably indubitable historical foundations. If you have done the reading, I’d love to see you counter the mounting literature that disputes your thesis. I think the fact that the level of commentary at CtC and CCC speaks volumes about the ability of your “paradigm” to deal with the evidence.
LikeLike
Sean,
Kenneth, all I can really say to you is; “whole heck of a lot of good that priestly charism is doing for most priest and lay catholics the past 50 years.”
If you had been born under the reign of Pope Liberius when “the whole world groaned to find itself Arian” things would have looked a whole lot worse. Yet, the Church acted as the principled means to navigate through those brutal days. The same will happen with todays crises. It might take a hundred years but as soon as “Rome has spoken; the case is closed”. Thats the whole advantage! Your suprised that controversy and false teachers have arisen in the Church? Of course it has, thats no big suprise. Our authority has never claimed to make sure no controversy or diversity of opinion ever takes place. Our Authority promises to step in when no one can agree and give the call on the field. The magisterium is our “infallible umpire” if you will. Christ promises that everytime the whistle is blown whatever is bound on the field is bound by the Commisioner in the entire league!
That line pretty much says it all. I don’t think your disagreement is with me, but roughly 95% or so of your RC brethren, maybe more in the western world. Reform away. I’ll sit back in my protestant easy chair and watch, maybe help a few of you fill in the blanks where you don’t know. To be honest I’m not to worried about a principled opportunity of infallible charism that never gets exercised. There are however more dominant applications of binding churchly authority that you deem worthy of navigating, so, more power to you. I’m all for the lay exercise of religious conscience as example of lay charism.
An infallible charism that NEVER gets exercised? Surely you jest? That principled means has been the way we have always determined who is sect and who is not. How we can tell between orthodoxy and heresy. I noticed, AMAZINGLY, that not one person attempted to answer the question of what a sect is and how you can know if your in one. Robert gave it the old college effort but no real substance. I would love to hear someone give another try at an answer. Its a good question. BTW I navigate all the “channels” is scripture, Tradition, and Church teaching that are authoritative and binding. If Pope Francis comes out excathedra and says traditionalists are wrong about everything I am ready to submit at the drop of a dime. (thats not going to happen though) Where else would I go? PCUSA?
DGHART,
Thanks for the comment! I believe just recently Bishop Fellay had a couple of choice words but It is not a laymans job to rebuke the Pope. Its our job to submit to the Church and trust in Christs promises. If there is grey area then there is grey area…. but if there isnt… gotta bend the knee.
LikeLike
I’d like to know if Peter wore a gold mitre, red shoes, had a staff of thousands, or owned billions in real estate, too…while we’re at it.
LikeLike
Robert,
The magesterium does not produce God breathed statememts produced through the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit. That is held by scripture and Tradition (which are in fact closely related). The Church is merely protected from error. Thats why scripture in ALL of its parts is infallible and inerrant and papal encycicals and church councils are not.You would need to explain to me why you think all three legs of authoirty have to be the exact same thing? The Church does not “now teach” that the bible contains errors. That is impossible because inerrancy has already been defined clearly by previous popes and councils. V2 definition is a little ambiguous (just like most all of the council documents are ambiguous) but that does not somehow defacto negate previous infallible pronouncments.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Sorry for jumping in late. The claim that Protestants in general or Reformed in particular are sectarian for withdrawing from the Roman Catholic Church is, historically speaking, a bit ironic. Luther attempted to reform the Catholic church of its abuses, both moral and doctrinal. His moral criticisms found widespread support, but his (valid, I would say) doctrinal criticisms got him removed on pain of death from the RCC.
Likewise, the Reformed see themselves as the true church, as opposed to the false Roman Catholic Church, that is why we are called “Reformed” — the movement was born out of an attempt to reform the church, not, initially, to separate from it. Rather than receive the Apostolic doctrine proclaimed by the reformers, the RCC attempted to suppress both the Apostolic doctrine and those proclaiming it.
It is odd to blame the Reformed for leaving the RCC when it was that very same body that went around killing them whenever the could. Perhaps the Reformed “sect” would not have been quite so small had the Inquisition not been so efficient at killing Reformed Christians to the tune of up to 100,000 murdered in a couple centuries.
Besides the widespread violence against the Reformed, Rome also officially rejected the gospel in Trent. The reformers tried to correct Rome’s aberrant doctrine and received a death sentence for their trouble.
What were the reformers supposed to do?
LikeLike
Chortles,
No he did not. Just like the first ever macintosh wasnt near as sexy as the imac I am typing on today. Dont forget we are the apple store of religions! The trend setters baby! The ones who set the agenda. The Church that gives all other platforms “little man syndrome”. icatholic4life
LikeLike
Hi Mad Hungarian,
I am signing off after this. No one who reads all of Trent really believes that Rome condemned the gospel at Trent. It may have condemned the gospel as conceived by Luther, I’ll give you that. I’m guessing you’ve never read Trent. Most Reformed pastors have never read Trent either. Usually, people just skip down to the anathemas and assume they know what’s being talked about. Even if one wants to define the gospel in contemporary evangelical terms, perhaps “as God’s initiative to redeem sinful by his own grace, merited by the death of his son on the cross”, then Trent still did not condemn the gospel.
BUT – Calvin had already started his version of the Reformed movement (about 20 years before Trent), so it doesn’t make sense to try and justify the existence of Reformed Christianity by saying that Trent had something to do with it! I would encourage you to actually read Trent.
LikeLike
Kenneth, it may not be a layman’s job to rebuke his superior, but how do you explain Paul rebuking Francis’ forbear who then submitted, and why does papal infallibility have to continue while apostolic rebuke must cease?
LikeLike
ZRIM,
could you please break down what your asking a little further? I don’t think I understand the the scope of the question/argument.
LikeLike
Jeremy, because my Bible tells me so.
And since the Eastern churches preceded the West, when was the last time you pondered Rome’s sectarianism.
Again, you are hung up on size. You’ve lost that Benedictine feeling and are going all Constantinian on us. But it suits you having come out of TKNY.
LikeLike
Jeremy, “Every Sect believes they are the most orthodox.” Convert to Rome, look in the mirror.
“Sects are founded by men.” And that see founded by Peter is just an option for the ecclesially minded?
LikeLike
Jeremy, you’re not following Vatican II:
You’re a sectarian Protestant in Rome’s sacraments.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
I have read Trent and more than once. Trent surely disagrees with Luther. I would also say that it disagrees with Scripture.
It is interesting that some contemporary Catholic theologians have an ambivalent attitude toward Trent. If I recall correctly, Fiorenza and Galvin advocated writing off the document as an entirely historical artifact, with no doctrinal importance for contemporary Catholics.
LikeLike
Jeremy, with the anathemas as clear as they are, no one needs to read all of Trent. Thanks for talking today.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Let me apologize. I don’t mean to rail on your church, but I get why it may sound that way. If you go to the home page and read the “about” over at CtC you’ll see that the reason the site exists is because we feel indebted to the Reformed tradition.
There is nothing I love more then when a Reformed brother comes home to the Catholic Church. It’s also incredibly frustrating in these debates when people keep repeating things they’ve heard (but haven’t looked at first hand) or when people refuse to actually consider an argument.
The Catholic Church satisfies the hungers generated in Reformed Christianity. Reformed Christians want a Church with real authority, but have none. Reformed Christians know the sacraments matter and are sick of having it tacked on as an addendum at the end of a service once a month. Reformed Christians care deeply that Scripture is interpreted rightly. Reformed Christians are sick and tired of the evangelical model of pathetically trying to be relevant. We could go on and on.
The Catholics I know who were formerly Reformed are some of the happiest Catholics I know.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
The Catholics I know who were formerly Reformed are some of the happiest Catholics I know.
That’s because they haven’t yet learned that the Protestant epistemology they still use doesn’t work on the other side of the Tiber. Which is why former RCs like Sean and Bob S don’t recognize the CTC brand of RC, and its why every RC I’ve ever known cares about as much about what the pope says infallibly that I do.
LikeLike
Jeremy, you guys could go on and on? Beleieve you me, I know the feeling.
Take care.
LikeLike
If choosing the right church really came down to finding the one that accords with scripture, we wouldn’t be having this argument; we would all recognize the same visible church. If we can suppose that there are members of the invisible church mixed in among the attendees of a RC communion, why can’t they ( or we), as true sheep locate the visible communites where we ought to be? I mean, shouldn’t it be easier to find that right church? Shouldn’t there be some criteria to let us know where to go to church where we will get all that we need for faith and holiness?
In Protestantism there is no way to find a visible community. “Creeds that exist to destroy each other both have scriptures, just as armies that exist to destroy each other both have guns”
LikeLike
Susan, Jesus was with his disciples on the Road to Emmaus and they didn’t even know he was with them. The Prot-turned-RC naivete about how clear things must be is really just another version of fundamentalism.
LikeLike
Jeremy, you say: “The Catholic Church satisfies the hungers generated in Reformed Christianity. Reformed Christians want a Church with real authority, but have none. Reformed Christians know the sacraments matter and are sick of having it tacked on as an addendum at the end of a service once a month. Reformed Christians care deeply that Scripture is interpreted rightly. Reformed Christians are sick and tired of the evangelical model of pathetically trying to be relevant. We could go on and on.”
Well, to be precise, it was all those Renaissance popes and all those indulgences that did not satisfy would be Protestants.
But if you think you have authority, sacraments, and Scripture rightly interpreted under any pope after Vatican 2, you are smoking those wafers you call the body of Christ.
If you want this apologetic for Rome to be at all plausible, you need to do something other than the Roman version of Jack Chick comics.
LikeLike
@Brandon —
It is worse than that. They did address the scholarship and mostly just dismiss it. ( http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/modern-scholarship-rome-and-a-challenge/ ). Lampe does an excellent job of of categorizing and classifying what we know about Roman christianity from a variety of sources. And his lists simply contradict the story of orthodox Catholicism, they are completely inconsistent with early Roman Christianity being uniformly or mostly Catholic. That’s a big problem and they dance around it.
And they dance around it because they have no answer to it. We know much more about the past than we did in centuries past and almost every piece of evidence we have makes their version of events less likely. They site Irenaeus whom on things that are testable is known to have exaggerated or lied for propagandistic effect. But really what they are doing is pointing to the void behind Irenaeus, that if Irenaeus was not an merely an early teacher Catholicism but rather one of the early inventors of Catholicism then (unmentionable bad stuff, they never really finish the thought).
Ultimately they rely on the facts that most Reformed interlockers aren’t willing to just dismiss Irenaeus as a propagandist.
LikeLike
Susan,
If choosing the right church really came down to finding the one
that accords with scripturethat has a clear indisputable view of apostolic succession and infallible line of bishops, we wouldn’t be having this argument; we would all recognize the same visible church. If we can suppose that there are members of the invisible church mixed in among the attendees of aRC communionEastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, or Lutheran (Apos. Succession) communion, why can’t they (or we), as true sheep locate the visible communites where we ought to be? I mean, shouldn’t it be easier to find that right church? Shouldn’t there be some criteria to let us know where to go to church where we will get all that we need for faith and holiness?In
ProtestantismRoman Catholicism there is no way to find a visible community of the nature that RCs like Jason, Susan, Bryan, Jeremy, Kenneth, et all want to find. “Creeds Competing claims of apostolic succession and papal infallibility that exist to destroy each other both haveScriptures, just as armies that exist to destroy each other both have guns”It’s no more easier to discern which claim of apostolic succession is correct according to history than it is to discern which doctrine is correct according to Scripture. With all due respect, you’re living in a dream world.
LikeLike
If choosing the right church really came down to finding the one that accords with
scripturethat has a clear indisputable view of apostolic succession and infallible line of bishops, we wouldn’t be having this argument; we would all recognize the same visible church. If we can suppose that there are members of the invisible church mixed in among the attendees of aRC communionEastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, or Lutheran (Apos. Succession) communion, why can’t they (or we), as true sheep locate the visible communites where we ought to be? I mean, shouldn’t it be easier to find that right church? Shouldn’t there be some criteria to let us know where to go to church where we will get all that we need for faith and holiness?In
ProtestantismRoman Catholicism there is no way to find a visible community of the nature that RCs like Jason, Susan, Bryan, Jeremy, Kenneth, et all want to find. “CreedsCompeting claims of apostolic succession and papal infallibility that exist to destroy each other both haveScriptureshistorical claims, just as armies that exist to destroy each other both have guns”It’s no more easier to discern which claim of apostolic succession is correct according to history than it is to discern which doctrine is correct according to Scripture. With all due respect, you’re living in a dream world.
LikeLike
Susan,
The Reformed do have criteria, it just so happens that they exclude the RCC. At a minimum, one would expect that a true church would get the basics of the gospel right. The RCC does not, so how could it be a true church?
During the Reformation, more than once the Reformed showed up with a Creed confessing Scripture while the Catholics arrived with guns.
Maybe the moral of the story is: If you value your life, don’t bring a Confession of Faith to a gun fight.
But many of the reformers valued their souls more than their lives.
Today, the decision between Rome and the reformation will not result in physical death.
But the eternal implications are no less perilous today.than they were 500 years ago.
LikeLike
Renaissance popes…smoking those wafers…;.Jack Chick comics.
During the Reformation, more than once the Reformed showed up with a Creed confessing Scripture while the Catholics arrived with guns.
Mega double dings, DG and MH. As Mike Tyson once said, “I take my hand off to you” If this were Little League it would be time to invoke the slaughter rule.
LikeLike
Since DGH didn’t answer I’m going to go for it.
a sect is a small religious group that breaks off from a larger religious group in protest. So the OPC would have been a sect off of the PCUS/PCUSA when it formed.
a denomination is an independent religious organization in a coequal family. Today the OPC is a sub-denomination within the Presbyterian family of denominations.
the Western Rite Catholic Church is similarly a denomination though it was likely never a sect. Were it actually formed by Jesus than it would have been formed as a Jewish sect.
LikeLike
CD, that seems helpful. Thanks. Just FYI, Over at CtC, there was someone arguing against Bryan that the Free Presbyrterian Church of Scotland was the one true visible Protestant church, and Bryan was throwing all sorts of percentages at the guy (FPCS is around 3000 members, making the OPC look big by comparison). Jeremy, to me, was parroting some of the stuff he read from Bryan. Anyway, that discussion is on the “no visible church on Protestantism” thread (throw that into Google, it should pop up) if you or any reader is interested. I’ve never seen Bryan accuse someone of so much begging the question in my life (maybe Bryan’s interlocutor got to him). It’s worth checking out, I think. Take care.
LikeLike
CD-H, is that from an HHS website?
You know, we have no office of religious affairs to make those definitions. Jeremy seems to think his holy father and the magisterium does make such definitions. Trouble for him, as I keep saying, is that by his holy father’s standards, I am a separate brother, not a sectarian.
Anyway, sect and denomination are sociological categories, not theological. In theology we talk about false and true churches, or worse or better.
LikeLike
Kenneth, you’ll recall how Paul corrected Peter for refusing to eat with the Gentiles as being out of step with the gospel. The question is: What sort of hermeneutic could it be that turns this scene on its head and says the one man who descends from him who was corrected is now beyond correction from another, even as his divine infallibility continues? In other words, where the Reformed say infallibility ceases with the death of the apostles even as accountability of those who follow continues, the Roman say infallibility continues even as accountability of those who follow ceases.
You all love to lump the elder ruled Reformed in with authoritarian Biblicists. But with the simultaneous ceasing of accountability and continuation of infallibility, you guys sure seem way closer to the personality-driven and authoritarian Bible church fundamentalists.
LikeLike
ZRIM,
OK thank you for the clarification. This scene with Peter and Paul is an example of Peter not living up to his own teaching (ACTS 15) not an example of his doctrine being rebuked. People still rebuke Popes who don’t live up to the teaching of the Church. We could go through the really bad Popes of history but a more recent example is that of JP2 at Assisi. He got grilled for that event for decades. Bishop Fellay just lowered the boom on Francis for his recent interview gaffes. Still happens all the time. So I guess I am rejecting your premise that responsibility is less now than it was then
LikeLike
This scene with Peter and Paul is an example of Peter not living up to his own teaching (ACTS 15) not an example of his doctrine being rebuked.
For those who can read Acts 15 for themselves minus the absent infallible Roman interpretation of it.
Paul is getting hassled by the judaizers, who deny that justification is by faith alone.
He presents his case to the synod – made up of apostles and elders, both inspired and uninspired men – and Peter concurs. Then James summarizes the issue coming down on Paul’s side and not the judaizers and the synod concurs.
If you can see popery there or in between the lines, well hey. In a day when lemmings think the Boss rocks, I suppose anything is possible. Faith after all doesn’t come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, it comes by mastication and digestion of a unleavened wheaten wafer. Makes sense to me. We don’t really have reasonable souls after all, but rather ones that are enamored of ritualism, tradition and superstition.
Think I’m wrong? Obviously you haven’t made the right imprecation at the same time you apply the holy water to your
brassforehead and light the most blessed votive candle with matches that are sans the imprimatur. And those sleepless nights bowing down before the monstrance are doing anything for your discernment.There is nothing I love more then when a Reformed brother comes home to the Catholic Church. It’s also incredibly frustrating in these debates when people keep repeating things they’ve heard (but haven’t looked at first hand) or when people refuse to actually consider an argument.
The Catholic Church satisfies the hungers generated in Reformed Christianity. Reformed Christians want a Church with real authority, but have none. Reformed Christians know the sacraments matter and are sick of having it tacked on as an addendum at the end of a service once a month. Reformed Christians care deeply that Scripture is interpreted rightly. Reformed Christians are sick and tired of the evangelical model of pathetically trying to be relevant. We could go on and on.
Don’t be a taterhead, Jeremy.
We home, dude. There ain’t nothing to come home to in Rome, but ceremony, pomp and silly ex prots running around on the innernet telling us that in their opinion, only the pope has an infallible opinion. Well, thanks for sharing, pal, but you ain’t got a clue.
And we know that because among other things, you tell us ‘reformed Christians are tired of the evangelical model’.
Well umm, OK. Maybe that’s why they left evangelicalism for the reformed faith, just like some of us left Rome for the same.
You really need to get your lies straight. When ex-p’s like Bryan and Jase can’t give us the prot “paradigms” of SS and JBFA, they immediately disqualify themselves whether or not they got the cojones or integrity to admit it.
So then we got to put up with the spectacle of somebody who used to swear to the Westminster Confession (not the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy) – as in 1:9 – hunting and pecking around the margins in order to prove his pre-assumed thesis that the gospel is all about law-keeping. Rom. 2 really really really is the last chapter to the book, never mind 1:17.
And since Paul so obviously and pointedly ignores mentioning Peter the first pope in Rome at all in his epistle to the same, that just goes to show you Bryan ain’t far from the truth when he tells us that at least the early church fathers didn’t explicitly deny that Peter was the pope. And Paul was on board with the little papa. Uh huh.
It’d be pathetic and bathetic if it wasn’t so stinking puerile. But
Dave ArmstrongKenneth and the boys really lap it up so it must be good stuff.Yours truly may have never made it to the top of the SRA reading program in Sister Antoinette’s 4th grade class at St. Peter’s Elementary, but the CtC Counter Reformation to Jack Chick hasn’t made it out of the starting blocks, even if they jazz it up with a bunch of philosophy so called or have all kinds of sophisticated Stupor Bowl parties for all those “freakishly smart guys” that according to Jase, are attracted to Rome.
ciao
LikeLike
Sect – those who are separated from true churches on less than fundamental issues.
Schism – those who have separated from true churches for personal or sinful, but not doctrinal reasons.
Scandal – something that offends someone to the point they think it over rides the gospel.
“Your church can’t be a true church, because:
It is too small,
Because there is nothing that appeals to my senses in worship,
It is too austere, I can’t see what I am worshipping,
Protestants disagree about Scripture, so the infallible and perspicuous tradition according to Rome is the genuine rule of faith
You ridicule the ridiculous and believe that sound doctrine is supposed to stop the mouths of the gainsayers, not encourage them to share their opinions however ignorant, prejudiced or wicked.
“
LikeLike
@DGH —
That was me paraphrasing Weber, so you right about sociological categories. But those were the terms that Jeremy used in his repeated question. 🙂 I agree you talk mostly about false and true churches especially when talking to Catholics who have a better historical pedigree. But when you run into groups that have a worse one like Mormons conservative presbyterians are very happy to play the “we are part of the Christian religion you are a cult/sect” card. Having grown up Baptist we never played the sect / denomination / religion card because we only believed in the local church a superstructure was purely a negative.
How do you see those 2 in conflict?
LikeLike
Kenneth, all rebuke is criticism but not all criticism is rebuke. Paul is clear that Peter’s ways were contrary to the gospel, which is clearly a doctrinal rebuke. I understand you all think the papacy isn’t infallible 24/7/365, which opens the door for criticism in those odd times that infallibility fades out. But my point is that if the rock himself can come in for doctrinal rebuke, why not his types and shadows?
PS no need to yell my name.
LikeLike
CDH, some conservative Reformed aren’t quite as happy to use the term “cult” for false religionists like Mormons. In the post-Jonestown age where cult means not only religiously false but also anti-social and plenty of Mormons are both false religionists but good neighbors, some think Walter Martin has seen his day come and go.
LikeLike
A sect (almost a cult) to us is when a P&R handful of people break off from the vine and then they come on here for a some popcorn fart of a comment that they think will rock us…
they make some reference to the KJB as the only inspired source, they tell us to read Samuel Rutherford or some other Puritan that there is no way they have read themselves, they set up signatures on blogs with 3 inch high font declaring something about Christ ruling immediately, they act pious about EP and RPW and then put up tweets about how South Park rocked tonight…
that crowd…
LikeLike
Jeremy Tate,
If you are still reading, I understand some of the questions you are raising (I’m thinking of your 3:19 comment yesterday). You should feel free to re-ask questions you don’t feel are properly answered. I agree the thread went the way of snark, a bit, after that comment. Truth be told, I should only post comments on the weekend, because I have a job. And my weekends are full with my family commitments. If you really think Joseph Smith speaks for all Protestantism, I hope you keep asking questions. As I stated earler, I expect more from people who are public as you are, even more from seminary trained men. But I undersrandyour desire to proselytize here in place where Protestants hang out. All I’m saying is, if you aren’t satisfied with our answers, keep at it and don’t give up. We”ll show you how deep our convictions go, and why, is all I’m saying.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
CD-Host,
Ya, the CtC post is shockingly poor stuff. I don’t say that to score rhetorical points because I think that CtC has some interesting stuff when it comes to philosophy and theology. The entire project of CtC falls, however, if you can’t show Jesus founded the RCC. I’ve yet to encounter a Patristics scholar saying the things that are being argued at CtC. Perhaps my reading list needs to expand, but I’ve been searching for it and I don’t see anything substantive on CtC’s reading list.
In terms of Irenaeus being a propogandist, I’ve not really seen that much in the literature either. I’ve seen people chalk it up to anachronism, imprecision, honest mistake, or that Irenaeus’s list is not so much concerned with an episcopal office as it is with a tradition of teaching going back to the Apostles. It seems that you and Bryan Cross agree that either Irenaeus is lying or he is telling the truth. I think it is more complicated than that.
LikeLike
CD-H, you don’t think you communicate something very different when you tell someone they are separated brothers or when you say as Jeremy did that I am a sectarian? The latter is clearly a put down. The former may be patronizing, but Vat 2 was all about being tolerant and gracious to the wider world, even if a tad condescending in calling me separated brother.
LikeLike
Andrew B, of course that applies to Jeremy about asking questions as long as those questions really seek an answer. Jeremy is free also to come here and be snarky. I just wish he and the Callers would own up to the fact that all of their conversion narratives are premised on Protestantism as defective, and that they continue to promote that view, of course, in the peace of Christ. At the same time, I wish that all of their love of papal supremacy and the magisterium would catch up with the much more open (not hostile) view of Protestantism that Vatican 2 introduced. In which case, they have converted to Rome at precisely a time when the officials think Protestants have (not all) the truth of the gospel and the Callers don’t.
Jeremy and the rest are involved in one big con game with themselves.
LikeLike
Bob S.
I wasn’t making a case for the papacy. I was showing how Peters doctrine was correct but his practice was not. Hence the rebuke. please try and keep up with the conversation. For the record, I have only ever read one single article from C2C and that was recently on religious liberty.
LikeLike
Darryl, I view them as deeply deceived, call me a bleeding heart.
Take care, gotta run. Thanks as always, your post today was great. Always more to say, and time is not a luxury of mine.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
As far as the CTC crowd, their giveaway to the bankruptcy of their epistemology is revealed whenever they say things like “at least the RC chuch in principle has a way to settle things.” That principle is never realized, especially since V2, so it’s a dream.
LikeLike
Robert, exactly. It’s also not a way that any, at least, cradle RC’s talk about or discuss much less value their faith. I’m in seminary and we’re getting indoctrinated in thomism and the sacraments and higher critical method toward the scriptures and even liberation theology, of the Francis’ style, and high papalism is nowhere and I mean nowhere to be found. JPII was a bit of a rockstar but he was celebrated as a JFK type of figure, not a fount of doctrinal clarity much less extraordinary charism. And quite frankly the American RC is acutely aware of the gulf between the ethnocentricity of Vatican RC and our contribution as a cash cow and facilitator/champion of catholic social teaching.
Even the older generation, pre-Vat II, has no reference for the epistemological constructs of something like CtC, even if they share an affinity or nostalgia for the latin-rite/extraordinary form every once in a while. Finally, what is always left out of this picture, that again cradles are acutely aware of, are the political mechanizations of a heirarchy like Rome and how POLITICAL considerations play into appointments(bishops), curia structures, dogma(conciliar documents, this is a great deal of the fight over Vat II and trads complaining about vague language and SSPXers just outright rejecting it), handling disciplinary issues; the network, the huge hole in vocations-homosexual clergy,n the fight with the Irish bishops over the handling of sex scandal and all diocesan offices to make sure lawsuits can’t find traction against the Vatican itself. CtC and their ilk paint this pollyana idea not only of historical, philosophical and theological considerations but never own the enormous influence that political maneuverings play in the outcome of their communion. It’s a level of naivete that effectively disables the RC from exercising his lay charism and contribution to the body, it’s a level of disempowerment that the older generation, including extraordinary(papal) and ordinary(priestly) charism, who drove Vat II will never condescend to.
LikeLike
Zrim,
If by “rebuke” you are looking for something like schism no faithful Catholic will go that route. However, popes factually do get rebuked all the time to this day. I still maintain that premise is false. Look no further than the 2013 angelus conference. http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/fellay-pope-francis-genuine-modernist-2599 if that’s not a rebuke I don’t know what is.
LikeLike
@Andrew B
That is funny. For lurkers here is a direct link to the thread starting with the initial comment by Mark Hausam Andrew is talking about.
All told I think Bryan crushes Mark in that debate. For example
I think that’s a crushing rebuke to Mark’s theory. Bryan is rightfully pointing out that he is trying to have it both ways on this issue of sin causing distortion of reason. Of course is answer is apostolic succession which then reduces a complex hermeneutical and theological argument into a less complex historical, hermeneutical and theological argument. The problem for him is just that the historical and hermeneutical part are easily falsified. Also Bryan was excellent in catching Mark’s repeated contradictions between his two definitions of perspicuity.
It was a pity neither of you took him up on his where he doesn’t understand scripture. There are oh so many contradictions between Catholic theology and scripture.
Benjamin Keil’s counter argument is a variation of the Michael Liccione apologetic and falls apart had Mark just made use of the biblical system of authority. He didn’t so, score that one for the CtC crowd.
I like Jensen’s responses in this thread quite a bit, I’d be curious to dialogue with him. He’s a member of the CtC team that doesn’t seem to be in denial about the diversity of Christian opinion throughout Christian history (i.e. for example that Arianism was a large church with strong support from millions over countries and with a strong scriptural basis). He doesn’t seem to know much about the LDS church nor Jehovah’s Witnesses though he frequently uses them as an example but so far his interlockers haven’t challenged him on these points. I’d be curious to find out how he reconciles his views with the rest of the CtC apologetic.
The argument on God’s libertarianism I’ll also give to Bryan he seems aware of the issues while Mark didn’t. I think Bryan’s argument might be attackable. I don’t know how one can have any meaningful opinion on all of whether God created by his nature or whether this was a free act of love. They both are assuming a lot here.
LikeLike
But, Kenneth, where has any pope repented like Peter? Until then, what you are construing as a rebuke just looks like mere criticism.
And in the meantime, you’re undermining the Caller-esque claims to unified superiority. I mean, with Bishops like Fellay and the alleged rebukes going on all the time, it doesn’t sound like Rome has the corner on Kumbaya. Rather, it sounds like what you accuse Protestantism of being. So, what does Rome solve again?
LikeLike
Sean,
I’m so sad to hear that you left the faith after attending seminary. From what I read you are truly a tragedy of the crises. Had you received a better education in tradition you may have been able to avoid apostasy. You rattle off the problems in the Church and then cite those as a reason to leave. How sad. If your wife or children (if you have any) go through hard times I would assume you would not abandon them. Yet you would leave the Church (which is even worse than leaving your wife or children) because she is in crises? You seem to suggest that God can’t work through politics? Who cares how political the Vatican is? My faith isn’t in the Vatican my faith is in CHRIST and His promises to the Church. The only “naivete” here is coming from the bitter former seminarian who has the gall to claim that the principled means never gets actualized. That’s utter nonsense.
BTW, the sspx does not “outright reject” the second Vatican council. They accept 95% of the council and have serious misgivings on a few assertions that seem to be contradicted by previous documents with more authority. The politics you speak of keep them out of full canonical status while liberal groups who outright REJECT dogmas of the faith and much more of v2 are in the clear. The tide is turning though Sean. Already over half of daily mass goers in France attend the TLM. The norvus ordo babies are dying off and their children all leave the faith. All their seminaries and convents are crumbling while the “radtrads” are brimming with vocations. We have gone through 50 years of turmoil…. In the next 50 we will see the Church right back on track. I wonder what the protestant apologetic will look like then?
LikeLike
Zrim,
well now your laundry list of demands keeps growing larger and larger! First we just needed rebuke now we need rebuke and repentance. If anyone has sold you a bag of goods claiming that the RCC is one large happy family that never disagrees and is an epistemological utopia they are lying to you. I’ve been following stellman for a while now and he has bent over backwards (so has Bryan btw) to make sure you know that isn’t what he is peddling. The magesterium doesn’t get rid of all tension. The magesterium provides a way to get things back on track if the tension reaches a boiling point. If Francis ever addresses the SSPX concerns ex cathedra I can assure you that they would all submit (or at least most of them). Your sect has no way to resolve such a thing. If the PCA ever goes through a crises similar to Vatican 2 you would all just splinter and fragment. The track record speaks for it self. You see the difference? That’s the principled way we are talking about. Its not a magical utopia machine. Its a divine referee. That’s what you’re missing bud
LikeLike
Kenneth, you wrote to Sean: “You rattle off the problems in the Church and then cite those as a reason to leave.”
Have you ever read the conversion narratives at CTC?
LikeLike
Well the first thing is that after a split like that Pentecostalism is likely the dominant form of Christianity on the planet. The whole Catholicism is the default apologetic would be overturned. Pentecostalism is the default and Catholicism is just a family of sects.
I assume the left wingers who leave don’t permanently abandon all religion. So there would be some forms of post-Catholicism that the majority of Catholics were associated with capturing the “good parts” but leaving the hierarchy behind. Since the nuns have already mostly aligned with the Catholic Left they would likely take leadership positions. So instead of having variant theologies and politici but a desire to remain under one roof you would have the beginning of formal schism. Of course its only been 50 or less years so it is temporary and a result of present circumstances and obviously going to be corrected soon and….
_______
But the hierarchy, unlike the conservatives on CtC or CreedCult have learned from the Reformation. They know they hold a hand no stronger than the countless other denominations that had schisms and a much weaker hand than they did in the early 16th century when they had a schism. They want to remain Catholic, they aren’t going to encourage schism. Ultimately they will push but they will never push far hard enough that influential people say “I’m leaving to start my own church”. They, much as you right wingers would like them to will not create decision points if they can avoid it. There will be no crackdown.
LikeLike
Kenneth, Stellman and Cross have bent over but I’m not sure it’s backwards and I know it is not to show a realistic understanding of Rome or its very contested history.
You know, Protestants are a lot better (one of the few times I’ll claim superiority) at acknowledging the problems in their communions. But when you insist that the church can’t err, you set yourself up for living in denial.
LikeLike
Alright, Kenneth you go. So, are you calling me back to Francis’ Rome or the SSPX faction even schism?
Btw, not bitter. I am a little bitter toward the evanjellyfish, but here I’ve been defending Vat II RC against your(?) and CtC’s various inventions even while admitting to some unpleasant RC realities while I remained a son.
Good luck with your rad trad vocations and ongoing monetary crisis, even a third of your current size is still significant. If you’re an SSPXer, and couldn’t even get Ratzinger to bridge the divide you may want to double down on the rosary crusade and Fatima card and hop on one leg while going in a circle before seeking reconciliation with Francis. Francis has already told you what he thinks of the extraordinary form, and the novus ordo is normative per Vat II papal interpretation. Go ask the benedictines how that conversation went with Francis.
LikeLike
Thanks, Cdh, for looking that up and your thoughts on it. Truth be told, I like Bryan Cross, from my limited interaction with him. Deeply deceived, but I like him.
I prefer talking about the good websites I’m finding, such as church history lectures by Dr. Bray at biblical training dot org. I’m only only lecture 4 or so, but very very good.
We must always consider the lurkers, indeed.
Later, CDH.
LikeLike
Kenneth, I do think you should be thanked however for bringing into BOLD relief the very point of Darryl’s post.
LikeLike
Kenneth, less a growing laundry list of demands than a simple point that what we see in the NT are two apostles directly called by Christ among whom one doctrinally errs and another corrects and the first repents. Yet no example of that among those indirectly called. Humility among the directly called, arrogance among the indirectly called. I know my paradigm is screwed up, but sure seems like it should be the reverse.
Yes, I am aware of JJS’s efforts. They fall short. What is the point of having this principled means called papal infallibility by which to settle controversy if it doesn’t bring a form of ecclesial utopia? And if it doesn’t, and it doesn’t, then all you’re left with is a theory of superiority. There’s that humility problem again. But the Reformed also have a principled means by which to settle controversy in sola scriptura. It’s just that it doesn’t come with the implications of utopia, then back peddling when it isn’t achieved and an “aw shucks we’re just mere men, what do you want from us?” We know from the very start that once a doctrine is concluded on it won’t end controversy. And we can live with it.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Yes, size matters.
Maybe not simple numbers, but in the rest of life percentages are usually useful clues towards truth. If a large group of people were given a beverage to sample and 99% of them said it was beer and 1% said it was milk than we would probably assume that the mystery beverage is beer and that perhaps the 1% is a bit odd. But imagine if the 1% doubled down and started mocking the 99% and even started little groups (blogs) to reassure themselves it was milk.
The vast majority of Christians who have ever lived encountered Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church. Not simply “as Catholics”, but actually through the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the unavoidable norm of the Christian faith and the further Christians depart from her teaching the stranger their beliefs become (as illustrated by the entire history of Protestantism and her 33,000 denominations). Size matters, norms matter. Would 33,000 groups really have all defined the trinity or the two natures of Christ in the same way? No way! The small remains of theological unity within Protestantism are only what they inherited from the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
Jeremy, if that’s true, that size matters, what makes you pick the OPC for your plan of attack here at oldlife? Just because it’s Darryl’s church? Maybe you two have history I don’t know about. Just me here, but as I further study the evidence, I am more and more convinced that what the Roman Catholic church teaches is in error in many places. For me, it’s simply following the evidence. I understand we are talking theoliyu, and I believe we can’t prove many things with 100 (or even 99) percent certainty. You can’t write us off because we are a small denomination. Something about us has gotten under your skin, I wonder what it is….
No need to respond, I know I’m butting in.
Did I mention I could go on?!?
Until tomorroe or later,
Andrew
LikeLike
*theology (stoopid smartphone (angry emoticon))….
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Really? That’s your argument?
Somehow I don’t think you want to define orthodoxy by what the majority of professing Roman Catholics believe. It’s the Magisterium that is infallible, and they’re a bare minority of Rome.
In the days of Athanasius, Arianism must have been right then, correct? What about today. What with 4–5 billion people out of the 6–7 billion people in the world being non-Christian, that must make Roman Catholicism false.
I guess that whole principled distinction thing doesn’t really matter. It’s all about who can fill the most seats.
LikeLike
Hi Andrew,
I am not attacking. Had a been a Jew or Muslim before I discovered the richness of the Catholic Church I’m sure I would be sharing the Catholic faith with those communities. I come from the Reformed perspective, went to a Reformed seminary, and all my non-Catholic friends are Reformed.
Confessional Reformed Protestantism is Protestantism at its absolute best. I love Reformed people and I will always be indebted to the Reformed tradition.
LikeLike
Does Pentecostalism become the norm when it overtakes Catholicism? You and I will likely both live to see that day so we aren’t talking about some abstract question here.
And also you can’t have it both ways on this. The vast majority of Christians who have ever lived had a huge range of theological positions with the CtC crowd rejects:
The belief that Mary is fully divine
Arian Christianity
various pagan / Christian hybrids
Deism
Hermetic practices
Christian liberalism
…
The moment you limit “Catholic” to some form of religion that agrees with you on even the basics of theology you are nowhere near a majority, not even close.
LikeLike
Sure because after all we know that Protestants inherited: the five solas, ordinance vs. sacramental theology (in part at least), the priesthood of the believer, rejection of the parish system and instead a belief that individuals should find “the best” church for themselves, separation of church from state, church are free to choose their membership, …. from Catholicism.
LikeLike
Well, Jeremy, that’s flattering, but as my college teacher told me once, flattery wouldn’t get me anywhere. You need to understand how saddened a website like CtC makes us, because you left what you are calling “Protestantism at its best.” I mean it when I say I dont have time. It’s not a tactic, as I think some have accused me of just popping in and running off.
But I ain’t going anywhere, thanks for the kind words, and I do hope you talk with people here. Take care, Jeremy.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
Size matters. It’s not ALL that matters, but it does matter. I can’t imagine why the gospel writers and Luke in the book of Acts are always giving numbers updates if numbers are meaningless. I can’t imagine why the OPC and PCA track Church growth as closely as they do if size doesn’t matter at all.
LikeLike
DG,
No, I have never read their conversion stories. If they left because Protestantism doesn’t have a epistemologically sound authority system that’s one thing…. If they left because of politics and sin in the church I think that’s a terrible reason to convert. Hearing Sean moan about the post concilliar church is like listening to an atheist tell how they left Christianity because there was so much hypocrisy. Real patriots don’t jump ship when times get hard. Have Jason or the C2C bloggers claimed that the Church can never err on anything she ever does…. Or is the claim that she can err on matters of faith.and morals?
Sean,
The “Rome” that I am calling you back to is actually shared by Francis and the SSPX (they are not in schism). Of course, there is a disagreement brewing, but that really isn’t relevant. Those are “in house” debates that do not merit your consideration as a potential revert. First things first…. Worry about the rest afterwards. I attend an FSSP parish so I am not overly concerned with the sspx.
LikeLike
Jeremy, you’re still thinking like a modern Christian (read Protestant). You haven’t yet learned the ways of the medieval and hierarchical Vatican. It is not the 99% that matter. How very democratic and populist of you. It matters what Papa says matters. And as Ignatius of Loyola said, “I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.” Oh the irony of the original Jesuit saying that.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Are you sure that modern popes have not been rebuked for error repent? I will admit that I don’t have any idea if that has happened or not…. But what makes you so sure it hasn’t happened behind closed doors?
The advantage of a Pope and a magesterium is that they serve as an anchor for orthodoxy. The protestant world reminds me of playing at the beach. You look up and the current has taken you miles away from your towel and umbrella and you didn’t even realize you were moving! The early church could NEVER have survived the early heresies if they held the same view of “church” as Protestantism. The longer our separated brothers are away from home the stranger.and stranger they become. The bible can mean anything to anyone at anytime and it has throughout history. Christendom NEEDS an anchor. We NEED an infallible interpreter and referee. If there isn’t one we are all lost
LikeLike
Wrong, Ken. It’s the Word of God that we need, and were doing just fine without your leadership.I recommend the Westminster Confession of Faith, if you haven’t read it. Take care.
LikeLike
Tuning in late and saw this comment by Kent:
“… A sect (almost a cult) to us is when a P&R handful of people break off from the vine and then they come on here for a[sic] some popcorn fart of a comment that they think will rock us…they make some reference to the KJB as the only inspired source, they tell us to read Samuel Rutherford or some other Puritan that there is no way they have read themselves, they set up signatures on blogs with 3 inch high font declaring something about Christ ruling immediately, they act pious about EP and RPW and then put up tweets about how South Park rocked tonight…that crowd…”
But Kent, you can’t find stuff like this anyplace else – even in supermarket tabloids. I’m not sure what I’d do without my morning cup of coffee and fix of Old Life.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Very well said. Brilliant.
LikeLike
Jeremy, Christian unity around falsity is meaningless. I’m sure your next plug is that we dont have true authority. Give it up and write a CtC article , we know what you have to say and we reject. There’s nothing more to say.
LikeLike
How do we Protestants make it without the self-interpreting Magisterial documents? I mean, there is perfect harmony. All RCs agree on what the pope means. C’mon, you know how the conservatives and liberals are both praising the clarity of Francis’ remarks.
Honorius, now there was a pope who guaranteed orthodoxy! Oh, and Liberius who apparently signed an Arian confession! And all those bishops who thought maybe Nicea was too harsh.
Man, I’m glad for the anchor that is Rome.
LikeLike
Never, in human history, has falsity produced lasting unity. Yet the Catholic Church is going on 2,000 years. It is united because it is true.
LikeLike
Kenneth, you mean they are not in schism today, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:15 pm central time, they also are not in full communion and tomorrow is another day and another chance to pillorize the pope thus greatly enhancing their standing and opportunity for full communion certainly.
I left Rome because as I read scripture and was exposed to the original apostolic tradition, I realized I could not in good conscience remain a roman catholic. So, in the name of Christ, religious conscience, and hopefully some integrity and not a little family strife, I left. If anything, the trads and prot-catholics make RC that much more unappealing and I’m content my decision to leave was God-ordained.
Ratzinger quit on his revolution and I imagine it’s about to run out of steam. But, we will see. Francis is my kind of RC, at least in contrast to the rad trads, and I’m glad he’s pope.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Except that what the church believes about the pope today is demonstrably not what it believed at Trent, which is demonstrably not what Paul or Peter thought about the bishop of Rome since there wasn’t one. But keep on dreaming.
LikeLike
Kenneth, what makes me so sure is that the authoritarian system won’t allow it the way a Presbyterian view of authority does. Of course, that’s all theory. Then again, I thought drawing implications from theory was the point.
But as long as we’re using analogies, Rome seems like the frog in the kettle. He looks up one day and realizes he’s stewing in a syncretist pope-po-ri of Savior and Mediatrix, a strange concoction of Christianity and ancient pagan philosophy and ritual.
You ask: “Have Jason or the C2C bloggers claimed that the Church can never err on anything she ever does…. Or is the claim that she can err on matters of faith.and morals?”
The latter. But faith and morals are all there are when it comes to the church, and how can infallibility apply so selectively? By its very nature an infallible source must be inafllible on everything to which it speaks and at all times and in all places. The Bible has no trouble with that–it’s not as if either Prots or Cats claims the Bible is only infallible on certain things and/or in certain times and places, because that’s absurd. It’s like saying water is only wet in spots and on certain days. And you still have the problem of humility when claiming you can never err on faith and morals.
I understand you think that without papal infallibility we’re lost, but this is where your reasoning resembles the theonomists: they say we need an infallible source beyond the natural law ordained to rule civil society (otherwise we’re lost!!!!!), you say we need an infallible source beyond the Bible ordained to rule the church (or else we’re lost!!!!!!). Well, maybe sinners get both the natural law for civil society and the Bible for the church wrong sometimes, but chill out already. It’s better than cooking up wild schemes about Bibles ruling the world and popes being infallible in spots on certain days.
LikeLike
Robert,
The highest statement of Papal authority ever given was not at Trent or Vatican II. It was when God incarnate declared his intention to build his Church upon Peter and his confession of Christ. Yes, growth and development of doctrine, but it’s the same Church. Just like baby Robert, teenage Robert, and Happy-Reformed Robert all appear quite different, but you are still the same person.
LikeLike
We can all pray for further unity, true unity, as we rely on Him and His completed work, alone. Namely, the One Lord Jesus who is the Truth.
LikeLike
Kenneth, well, you need to read the conversion narratives. But why does the defect of not having an epistemologically sound authority system qualify as grounds to leave a church? That is a greater problem than the sins of the Renaissance popes? puh-leeze.
I’m sure everyone who is in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome will tell me the church cannot err only on faith and morals. And when they say that I guess it means the church gets a mulligan on child abuse? I really do resist going there but a culture that insists the church doesn’t err and the pope is infallible is not one to be transparent. Sorry.
LikeLike
Jeremy, are you living on the same planet? Maybe you missed a few recent stories about your anchor of orthodoxy:
Or this:
You’re sounding like a fundie. Worse, you’re sounding like an Obama supporter in 2009.
LikeLike
Jeremy, wrong again. The highest statement of Papal authority — surprise — came from the pope himself at Vatican I.
If you want to have a conversation, fine. If you want to preach to the choir, you need to go to Father Z’s blog. If you want to call Reformed Protestants to communion with Rome, try thinking.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
If temporal unity is the benchmark, then what about the Orthodox Church? Supposedly they have been around just as long as the RCC has supposedly existed. Yet Orthodox and RC both excommunicated each other. Both can’t be right, but both are old and each is a united group. It seems that this demonstrates that your argument doesn’t follow.
You are correct to say that Christ will build his church. But the RCC does not confess Christ. The RCC confesses Christ and human effort (grace and cooperation with grace as Trent put it). Paul said most clearly in Galatians that this is another gospel. If you confess another gospel you do not confess Christ, you confess the anti-Christ.
Christ did not lay an apostolic foundation only to build upon it the Anti-Christ’s church. The RCC is a false church and its gospel is a false gospel. This was true at Trent and it is true today.
You can refer to history and numbers all you want, but the foundational issue between the Reformed and the RCC is the definition of the gospel.
In order to be convincing to Reformed readers (such as at Old Life) you must be able to convince us that the Roman formulation of the gospel is biblical and the Reformed is not. Any other argument (sectarianism, size, etc) deals with issues of secondary importance (at best) and usually these arguments are simply not convincing to us.
LikeLike
Hi Mad Hungarian,
I assume, as a Reformed person, by gospel you mean justification. I think this is usually what Reformed people are referring to.
The Catholic Church teaches what Scripture teaches. By grace, through faith, worked out in love.
LikeLike
That’s a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church – 1992
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Thank you for your response.
Council of Trent, CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.
“…that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration..”
Same section on Justification,
“CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
Romans 3:28
“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law”.
Galatians 3.2-3
“Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
If we are supposed to co-operate with grace prior to justification, such co-operation would not be unlawful would it? If this is the case, then we have a problem with Romans 3.28, as co-operation is certainly our work according to Trent and as such it would certainly be a work of the Law.
Furthermore, Galatians states that our beginning (justification) was by the Spirit, by the hearing of faith (no co-operation here).
We can go back and forth and we can agree to disagree, but we cannot claim to both believe the same gospel. Rome and the Reformed do not share the same gospel.
I believe that the Reformed are carrying on the Apostolic tradition (2 Thess 3.6), which is the gospel of Jesus Christ (including, but not limited to, the doctrine of justification). I believe that at Trent Rome severed herself from the gospel and thus can no longer be considered a true church.
LikeLike
Mad Hungarian,
Can a person be justified and still hate God?
LikeLike
Hi Jeremy,
God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the response. I got to a place in my Reformed faith where I realized that although we talk about justification faith alone, no one really believes it’s possible to be justified apart from a regenerate heart. In other words, justification by faith alone is merely a hypothetical since nobody is justified while still having a degenerate heart that hates God. I’m not a big brain guy, but it seemed to me that both the Reformed in the Catholic are saying that man must be regenerate in order to be saved. The Catholics were talking about agape while the Reformed were talking about regeneration and illumination. It seemed to me that both groups believe that part of justification is moving from a place of being God’s enemy to being God’s friend. We can talk about alien righteousness all day, but ultimately, to be saved, the Reformed end up talking about a work God must also do in us, whether it be effectual calling, sanctification, or regeneration. I’m sure I’ll be told I don’t and never have understood Reformed theology, but this is the most sense I can make out of it.
LikeLike
Kenneth and Jeremy,
So is the umbrella Christ and the Church the towel? Or is the umbrella the Church and Christ the towel? I guess it depends on the encyclical . Funny you suggest the early church could not survive heresy if they held same view of the church as Protestantism, as if the early church had a fixed understanding of the church. My how the ahistorical schadenfreude toward Protestants yields such a pretty visible mother! Your defense of the “historical” early church reminds me of folks who go to EPCOT in Orlando and actually think are eating in a real country with authentic culture. Never mind that the early church looked really different depending if you were in Greece, Italy, Southern France, Turkey, or Egypt. No lie, choose the country and you really are having dinner there! Choose the version of the early church you like the best and you really avoid the Protestant dilemma! Is that Mickey Mouse I see waving at us?
LikeLike
Hi Jeremy,
Ok, straight up, you’ve been to a reformed seminary, my highest academic degree is a bachelor of arts. You’ve pondered this academically in a way I never have, but I have experienced the question you raise, namely, the ordo saludis, personally, and in relation to how I want to teach my children. I have agreed with RC Sproul since I read “Chosen By God” as a teenager (12 years ago now, or so). So I’m not sure how much help I can be academically, but we can explore these topics together, or you can ask others here who know more than me.
Yes, Jeremy, the act of the Holy Spirit is imperative for saving faith to occur. You have to understand that if you start bringing up the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in this forum, you will find us defending it. I can speak from experience primarily, again, but you’re going to have to combox a while here before you start getting to what this doctrine means to me. See the “forensics” section of this blog for more info. I’d be glad to point you to Darryl’s writings and explore this further. As I once told Dr. Alan Strange on greenbaggins, I find the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ to be one of the most peace inducing (and as he put it, most comfort affording) doctrines I have ever come into contact with, I recall quite well my experience of coming to understand it. I could go on…
Chill out, man, we’re in a theology blog, you know how the game is played. We talk as we do, because we care. I think people can tell when someone is an honest seeker. I told you to stick around and ask questions and I meant it. I, again, have little time, and my obligations call. I see the blogs primarily as a means to point people to other things (i.e. books and other websites). If I were you, I would not look for answers to your questions from an interlocutor like me. Keep asking. We’ll get at what you asking about, I guarantee it.
As an aside, I was a little shocked by your question about hating God. That’s pretty serious. Just realize how it may come off to people reading in public. If you’d rather discuss over e-mail, we can do that as well. I do want to help, because what I’ve found in reformed theology truly has been so helpful for me. I have no choice but to share in this way, I know this isn’t helpful for now, I’m more available on the weekend.
Gotta run,
Andrew
LikeLike
Jeremy,
I tried reading what you wrote again. I didn’t address this:
Here’s from RC Sproul:
“In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith. Without rebirt we have no desire for Christ. Without a desire for Christ we will never choose Christ. Therefore we conclude that before anyone ever will believe, before anyone can believe, God must first change the disposition of his heart.”
I’m actually struggling to see how you attach your sentences, it seems to me that you are just saying to disagree with JBFA. Sure, go ahead. Just realize that you have left our religion for another. Here, try the famous protestant liberal Paul Tillich, if you don’t believe me:
And then this, just for for (rabies theologorom…….)
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Justification is one part of the ordo salutis (order of salvation).
You said, “… no one really believes it’s possible to be justified apart from a regenerate heart.”
A note of caution is in order:
Regeneration and justification take on different meanings in Reformed and Catholic theology.
In Reformed theology, regeneration does not make a person righteous. Justification is the forensic declaration that the person is righteous. The only righteousness that I have is Christ righteousness imputed to me.
Rom 4.5 “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”
Here is some stuff on the differences between Reformed ordo salutis and Catholic ordo saluts. I’m just ripping these from my old seminary notes:
Reformed:
Effectual calling / Regeneration
Faith (repentance)
Justification
Adoption
Sanctification
Perseverance
Glorification
Catholic:
1. Baptism: first conversion
2. Justification = forgiveness of original sin, enables faith, hope, and love, and sanctification of the whole being, and infusion of God’s righteousness and enables meritorious works
3. Staying in a state of grace and growing in the virtues through the sacramental system, until final justification.
Note the different definition of the word “justification” in RC theology. We can sound like we are saying the same thing while meaning very different things.
LikeLike
I get the Reformed perspective. I do. But after all the theologizing, the Reformed are still left saying that for a person to be saved God must do something INSIDE of them. Am I right or wrong? Catholics are simply saying the same thing.
Notice the Reformed system;
Reformed:
Effectual calling / Regeneration
Faith (repentance)
Justification
Adoption
Sanctification
Perseverance
Glorification
A person can’t even be justified until they are effectually called. According to the WCF, this involves
Maybe I just don’t get it. But it sounds like the Reformed are saying “People can only be saved by faith alone + effectual calling” while the Catholics are saying “People can only be saved by faith and divinely infused love agape”. How is this so different that it’s worth ripping Christianity into 40,000 pieces. I promise I’ve tried to get it, but I don’t.
At the end of the day we both believe that to be saved God must do something IN us.
LikeLike
Jeremy, you have a heart for Ecumenism. The easy answer is we will not compromise purity for false unity. The differences between Cats and Prots are as real today as they were in Luther’s day. I won’t object if your church wants to adopt the Westminster Standards, and depose the Pope. You’ll get higher up the food chain of those communions our committee on ecumenicity is undoudetly working on. There are undoubetdly those things for you, as a Christian, are non-negotiable. JBFA is that for us. And the five Solas. We haven’t even talked about doctrine of Scripture, talk about where I could go on and on. If only you knew what Scripture means to me.
..
You don’t find these as important as I do, so you join a group trying to promote healing between Christians who are in conflict. We need thoughful Catholics listening to Protestants. God is amongst us while we pray for unity. The answer may be for you to work on those in your own house, than those if us who are in “the best that protestantism has to offer.” Just the numbers things will always rub an orthodox Presbyterian, you don’t know the struggles of small communion, you and everyone else picks on our size! Did I say I could go on and on?!?!
I’m logging off for a while, looking forward to reading instead of writing for a while. Later.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Of course God must do something in us. Without a new heart we reject the gospel. The difference is that our justification is in no ways a reward for us cooperating with God’s love or whatever spin the modern Roman church puts on it.
The Reformed are saying that effectual calling gives us the faith by which we are alone justified and, moreover, that all those whom God effectually calls come to faith and persevere in faith to the end. You don’t get the Reformed ordo salutis at all. Justification is in no way a reward for what we do. We can’t’ even take credit for exercising faith. Rome says two people can get the same grace but that it is possible for only one to have faith. Guess what, if grace is resistible, the one who has faith can take credit for making the right decision and boast in his own goodness.
The person who shows no love for God at all in His heart is not justified because He has no faith and thus no way to lay hold of the perfection of Christ. That’s different from saying that a person is justified because He has love and faith and in His heart or that our imperfect love is good enough to justify us before a holy God, which is the Roman Catholic position.
LikeLike
Andrew B,
You are quite kind, but I have to say that CTC has no desire to promote healing among Christians. Their desire is to promote ecumenicity as long as we agree that any criticism of Rome is question-begging, not done in the spirit of charity, and contrary to the peace of Christ. Their goal is to pick off professing-Reformed Protestants and make them superstars in their corner of the world. If there was a desire for ecumenicity there, they’d be honest about Rome and its history. If there was a desire for ecumenicity, they’d close the whole site down, for according to their own church, we’re all okay. We’re just separated brethren.
LikeLike
Robert, you are right. I’m actually still pretty disgusted with theology blogs in general, and CtC is the PERFECT example of that. Bryan Cross has been nice over there, but my conclusion is he doesn’t desire true dialog, which is what we get accused of over here. The fact is, as Presbyterians who appreciate order, the disorder these blogs bring should make us all upset. But Darryl et al have no choice, and his writing, I find, very helpful. The proper way forward is for committed to continue their work. You’re awesome man, keep it up with the Stellman comboxxers. Just take a break and take care yourself. Beware the rabies theologrum (see Tillich above(emoticon)).
Bye.
LikeLike
Robert, you write
When I read effectual calling from the WCF it sure sounds like God’s grace makes us cooperate
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Part of the difference between RC and Reformed theology is that RC theology does not really distinguish between justification and sanctification like Reformed theology.
In RC theology, justification is a dance back and forth between God and man.
In Reformed theology, we believe that dead men don’t dance.
You might object to this, but take a close look at the excerpt I cited from the Council of Trent above. RC theology claims that there is a prevenient grace dispensed that allows man to meritoriously co-operate with regenerating grace by exercising faith and love. (see also Thomas Aquinas, it is all throughout his theology)
Regeneration is solely God’s work, effectual calling is solely God’s work, justification is solely God’s work, even faith is a work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. There is no co-operation here.
Paul hammers this home in Galatians because this was exactly the Galatian heresy — adding works of the law to the gospel.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Just saw your post above. Willingness is an effect of regeneration not a cause. We don’t cooperate with God in regeneration, justification, etc.
RC theology explicitly teach cooperation in and with justification, not just as a result of it.
This is very similar to the difference between Augustinianism and Semi-Pelagianism.
LikeLike
But how do they come freely if they’re dead? So dead men don’t dance, but they do come to God freely?
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Regeneration allows / makes us to come freely. We don’t come freely to regeneration, we come freely because of regeneration, effectual calling, justification, etc. God doesn’t respond to us. We respond to God.
Faith, hope, and love are a result of God’s work in us, not the cause of God’s work in us.
First we are dead, then we are made alive, then we do stuff that living people can do.
A person can’t act alive when he is still dead. We believe in resurrection, not zombies.
LikeLike
I (all about me) find it hard to believe that these ex-Reformed CTC types really can’t recite the Reformed ordo. Even I (all about me) as a
ReformedCalvinisticLutheran (sans paedobaptism, sans sacramentalism, sans episcopacy, sans woo woo) Baptist (okay,LutheranBaptist) could do it from a wee lad. And I should think if I were to swim the Tiber, I’d be brushing up on the oldTFU WCFLBC a bit before donning the Most Blessed Lifejacket of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Queen of the Universe, Etc.LikeLike
Ken, you still don’t get it. The synod, made up of both inspired apostles and uninspired men decided the question/had the last word, not Peter. IOW you can’t find the papacy in Scripture.
Gal. 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
James and John, as well as Peter “seemed to be pillars” and sent to the Jews and not the gentiles?
The magesterium doesn’t get rid of all tension.
Bullsh*t. Where have you been? That’s been the numero uno reason for Bryan and Jason’s crush on the papacy. But you’re not CtC, so you disagree with their emphases? Then where’s all this unity that the magisterium produces?
All told I think Bryan crushes Mark in that debate. For example
. .. Given that your belief is just what a powerful noetic effect of sin (which you have to posit applies to everyone else) would lead a person to believe, how do you know that you’re not presently a victim of this noetic effect of sin, and deeply deceived regarding what is the true church, which is the authoritative tradition, and who is the true magisterium? Why can the noetic effect of sin deceive them (i.e. the 2+ billion Christians in schism) such that they don’t realize they are deceived, but not deceive you into believing that you’re not deceived?
No, Bryan – unbeknownst to himself is describing his own predicament to a T.
OK it needs a few more “paradigm” and assertions/accusations of “begging the question”, but we all know what Bryan is really talking about even if he doesn’t.
And we won’t mention any names, but for those who can’t figure out what their own church teaches, never mind protestantism and have been to a “reformed seminary” to boot, check this out: Justification by Faith: Romanism and Protestantism
LikeLike
Andrew and Jeremy, it is indeed possible for a saint to hate God. It is called sin, which is something that all believers commit every day. And that is why Luther talked about being a saint and a sinner. To talk about believers not hating God is about as hypothetical as it gets.
LikeLike
Daniel D., welcome. Great riff.
LikeLike
wjw, comic book indeed.
LikeLike
I’m not saying that there is no difference between the Reformed and Catholic concepts of justification. There is. The difference, however, is not that the
Bottom line – the Reformed believe that a person must have faith and a new heart to be saved. Hence, faith alone, is never a reality. This is why the Reformed always like to say, “we’re saved by faith alone, but by a faith that never is alone.” What does that even mean? It’s like saying “free admission, but you must give a donation.” Catholics are just being honest. We’re saved by grace alone, through faith, working out in love (agape). The Reformed care too much about trying to be orthodox to keep going down the Lutheran road.
Catholic – to be saved one must have faith + love towards God
Reformed – to be saved one must have faith + new heart (that loves God)
LikeLike
Keep in mind that the Reformed Ordo is not explicitly laid out in Scripture. Sure, it is the work of gifted theologians who knew Scripture well, but at the end of the day it is theologizing. EVERYTHING outside of Scripture is fallible for the Reformed Christian. No doctrine is settled. How much trust do you want to put in fallible formulations (by your own admission) of doctrine on matters this important?
LikeLike
Jeremy, yours of 7:28:
Bottom line – the Reformed believe that a person must have faith and a new heart to be saved. Hence, faith alone, is never a reality. This is why the Reformed always like to say, “we’re saved by faith alone, but by a faith that never is alone.” What does that even mean? It’s like saying “free admission, but you must give a donation.”
Never alone in fact, but sometimes apparently alone to human eyes (thief/cross). Try “free admission but you’ll eventually (in God’s good time) realize you should have had to pay, could never afford it, etc.” That’s where gratitude comes in and that’s our impetus for worship and works. Faith AND a new heart confuses it, and you should know that. Faith is possible because of the new heart.
Are you playing dumb?
LikeLike
Jeremy at 7:36, we hold the Word alone is infallible, and if you want to attribute infallibility to your church and pastor, then of course, keep being a Catholic. The problem is you pretend like this isn’t s big deal, when it’s actually massive (!). Many years on reflecting on what infallibility means pulled me out of liberal theology, and I ain’t looking back….
The five Solas aren’t just a game with us, they are serious. Fallible though they may be, they summarize us pretty well.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Not to be rude, but were you even paying attention in seminary? Oh, wait, your CTC bio says you were being drawn to Rome while you were a seminary student.
Not by faith that is alone means that even though NOT ONE of our good works—even those inspired by agape or whatever Rome says these days—avails before God in any sense for our justification, the justifying faith inevitably produces fruit, which fruit is by no means EVER considered by God when he decides whether or not to admit us to His kingdom. The imputed righteousness of Christ covers all of our imperfect works and is the standard by which God determines whether or not we are getting into heaven. Christ alone.
The new heart God gives us is a sheer gift, given at His own time and not bound to the moment of baptism. That same heart God sustains. Whomever receives the new heart is sustained by God so that the new heart can never be lost, can never finally commit impenitent rejection of Christ, etc. But the new heart is not the grounds for our heavenly citizenship. That is the work of Christ. In fact, one can say that the new heart is the result of the work of Christ for His people, for those He atoned for. Everyone for whom Christ died will get that new heart because God has elected a people in and for Christ, and He will not let any of them fall out of Christ’s hand.
This is basic Reformed soteriology and it’s diametrically opposed to the justification by baptism, loss of justification by mortal sin (whatever that is, since Rome doesn’t give us a list), recovery of justification via penance, loss of justification by mortal sin, recovery of justification by penance, getting a ding against one’s record by venial sin, covering one’s bases by last rites, time in purgatory to be cleansed (well, Rome changed and doesn’t calculate that in years any more, does she), and then finally, the beatific vision.
It’s diametrically opposed to Roman soteriology, wherein God gives fallen, fallible creatures a new heart that is easily lost. It’s diametrically opposed to Roman soteriology that says God’s work is so weak that salvation can be here today, gone tomorrow.
LikeLike
Jeremy we don’t choose what is and isn’t infallible. We look at history, and as I said before, we follow the evidence. You may have been taught Protestantism in one of our seminaries and you rejected it. It’s a big deal because these matters are so important, as you state. You may want to consider being less public about your own narrative until you’ve settled some of these basics. Remember what Scripture says about teachers being held to a higher standard. And yet you and the rest at CtC continue to act as you do. We’re upset about your website, get over it.
LikeLike
I’m not playing dumb. I’m seriously just not a big brain. I actually did 4th grade twice (cursive and division in one year…too much)
Look. You all have the audacity to say Rome condemned the gospel at Trent. Seriously? Even my Reformation Church History professor (Frank James) said that the gospel had never been understood in the way Luther understood it and that even Augustine would have been “horrified” by Luther’s idea. The gospel Trent condemned was the new gospel of Luther, not the gospel of the Bible. Martin Luther described a justified man as a snow-covered pile of dung. This is not Scriptural. The justified man is a “NEW CREATION”. St. Paul’s words, not mine. A new creation is not “dung”.
Think about how audacious and destructive your claim is. – Rome is false and believes a false gospel – But why? Well because Rome believes in faith + works (meaning agape in the heart of man) while we know that the true gospel is faith + no works (except a new heart with agape).
You can’t honor the WCF if you deny that a new heart is needed to be saved. But, as soon as you say a new heart is needed then it is no longer faith alone. It becomes faith + regenerate heart (AGAPE).
LikeLike
Jeremy, is it that hard to believe how corrupt the church became? Why can’t you understsnd many of us believe the reformation isn’t over yet? We know how serious our claims are. The problem is, you didn’t understand them when you were taught, so here we are.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I wrestled against ctc claims, but not for very long. Blame me for being in the OPC my entire adult life….I agree there’s a way forward for Ecumenism, just be careful (!). None of us rely on our intellect. Read the Bible. It’s what I am doing now.
Later.
LikeLike
I pray for us both. I am asking you to stop doing interpretative gymnastics. Let the Scriptures mess with you.
– James 2:24-26
John 15:1-6
LikeLike
Jeremy, whatever you say. But for what it’s worth, come over here and post all the Scripture you want. We can never get enough of the good stuff…..
LikeLike
Jeremy, I know you don’t respond to me even though this blog is all about me, but I need to throw another flag as moderator. If you are going to call our reading of Scripture “interpretive gymnastics,” gymnast perform thyself when it comes to the way you read church history. I’m supposed to trust you after the way you read Vatican II?
LikeLike
D.G.,
That’s not very nice. I do respond to you. Remember when I kept asking you to define sectarianism and you kept ignoring the conversation? Then yesterday I made the case that numbers do matter in response to you (they’re not everything, but they’re not nothing either sort of thing). Sure, I’ll bite. I sometimes idealize the pre-Vatican II Church (probably in the same way you idealize the higher points of Reformation history). But just because it’s not my favorite Church Council doesn’t mean I don’t submit to it. That’s the difference. That’s why there are no more Reformed Councils.
LikeLike
Jeremy, stop it (somebody ping Bob Newheart…). To me, you are engaging in strict polemics since you started on this thread. To me, your relationship to Vat2 is fascinating. As an officer of the OPC (inactive), I’ve pondered my relationship to my tradition, such that, for example, I don’t believe the ussherian cosmology (i.e. the days of Genesis were not 24 hours in length, IMHO).
I think you need to take the hint, and unsrstand there may be reasons why you are not getting s break. My advice – take the day off, see you another day, friend.
Later.
LikeLike
Sure. Peace
LikeLike
@Andrew —
What would true dialogue be about? There is normal ecumenicalism of the “we don’t agree but let’s work together on common projects” sort that does exist within the religious right. As an aside my experience with Bryan is that he is trying to dialogue in the sense that he genuinely tries to understand why someone doesn’t believe in Catholicism, engage them on that point, and get them to believe. He is capable and anxious to listen. He tore apart Mark’s arguments so well because he listened to Mark. Many of the other CtCers are genuinely nasty cruel people I wouldn’t group Bryan among them.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
In Catholic theology, justification is God recognizing that he has made one righteous.
In Reformed theology, justification is God declaring that one is righteous for Christ’s sake, not stating that we are righteous.
God justifies the ungodly, he does not justify those already righteous.
Catholics speak of faith as something close to a material cause, that is why it is always “faith formed by love.” Faith formed by love is the ground of justification (as defined by RCs).
In Reformed theology, faith is an instrumental cause, it is the means by which we are justified, not the ground for our justification. Faith plus regeneration is not the ground of justification in Reformed theology. God’s good pleasure and the active and passive obedience of Christ is the ground of our justification in Reformed theology.
The Lutheran and Reformed description of the justified Christian is “simul iustus et peccatur,” I do not believe that RC theology fully embraces this position.
LikeLike
CDH check out the presbytery of northern california and Nevada, of the opc , audio pagez for lectures form 2009 animus imponentis. Dr. George Knight III, who chairs our committee on ecumensim, has words worth reading. He studied under John Murray. I do differnet things in the OPC which I can explain someother time. If your good, you’ll find the q and a part of that conference where I am asking questions. Hint – the mist poorly worded questions about general assembly and so forth. Easter eggs (emoticon, your an IT guy, you should know what that means….)
Taking the day off,
Andrew
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Even my Reformation Church History professor (Frank James) said that the gospel had never been understood in the way Luther understood it and that even Augustine would have been “horrified” by Luther’s idea.
Well, I also had Frank James and he is no patristics scholar. I think he would admit that. My class on early church history never mentioned Origen, so take that for what it’s worth as far as his thorough knowledge of the fathers.
To say Augustine would be “horrified” is an extreme overstatement. We simply cannot expect people who lived before the Reformation to have a fully worked out and correct theory of justification when their own statements show contradictory views at time. Historically speaking, it was the Roman Church’s selling of salvation that provoked the Reformers to consider whether or not everything in the pre-Reformation tradition was kosher, just as it was Pelagius’ teaching that forced Augustine to reconsider whether the earlier father’s views on free will were accurate. In that, Luther, Calvin, et al were following the good bishop’s example. Augustine’s understanding of election is consistent only with justification by faith alone even if he never lived to think in those terms.
The Protestant understanding of justification made a sharper break between regeneration and justification than the Western church had heretofore made officially. That’s why we deny baptismal regeneration and justification among other things. They did it according to Scripture. Even if no one taught it before, that doesn’t make it wrong necessarily. And I can point you to Clement, Diogenetus, and several other early church writers whose statements on justification are essentially Protestant. The wars were not being fought over justification in those early years, so there is no reason for a systematic definition or thinking through of the issues.
Justification by faith alone in the Protestant definition is what we would call a legitimate development in doctrinal understanding based partly on the earlier church’s understanding of things as well as a return to Scripture. If you get to claim doctrinal development for papal infallibility, which nobody but maybe a few bishops taught before Vatican I and is entirely inconsistent with all views of bishop collegiality and conciliarism that prevailed in both East and West, then we get to claim that for justification. And I guarantee that the evidence for justification is far better biblically, historically, and in tradition. The only thing that supports papal infallibility is the dreams of some power-hungry Roman bishops who couldn’t take the loss of their temporal authority.
I’m not trying to be rude, but you need to get it through your head if you are going to critique Reformed theology as a former Reformed Protestant that we don’t add faith and a regenerate heart together and proclaim justification as a reward for having both. That is Roman Catholicism. The regenerate heart produces faith, which is the means by which we lay hold of Christ’s righteousness. The regenerate heart is not a means, but a source of the means, and even then it is a source that finds its source in God alone, who does not regenerate all who are baptized.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
Thank you for citing Scripture. I will quickly address the James passage. I will probably be unable to post further today.
James is referencing Genesis 22, where God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
But what comes before Genesis 22? How about Genesis ch 15, where God makes a unilateral covenant with Abraham, Genesis 17, where God promises to be a God to Abraham and his offspring and gives the sign of circumcision.
So the question is, was Abraham not justified prior to the events in Genesis 22? Of course he was justified. Otherwise, you would have to say that God made a covenant with Abraham the pagan, promised to be Abraham’s God even though Abraham was an enemy of God, and gave him the sign of circumcision to Abraham, despite the fact that it was meaningless to him at the time.
James’s point is that Abraham has demonstrated his faith by his obedience to God.
James then cites Genesis 15.6 “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Note that Abraham’s belief in God’s promise (faith) led to his being declared righteous, not his obedience in being willing to sacrifice Isaac.
At the end of the day, James actually offers support for the doctrine of justification by faith alone because he is showing from Genesis that sanctification follows from justification. Those who are justified are also those who are being sanctified, that is, those who demonstrate their faith by love and obedience.
LikeLike
Since Jeremy Tate brought up both 33,000 and 40,000 denominations yet again, I feel the need to post this yet again: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/08/22/the-33000-denominations-myth/
I think the 33,000 denominations thing is nearly essential to the Roman apologetic for Protestants, or else it wouldn’t be so ubiquitous.
Regarding JBFA and Robert’s post, here’s Pelagius commenting on Romans 3:28: For we deem that a person is justified through faith without the works of the law…. “Some misuse this verse to do away with works of righteousness, asserting that faith by itself can suffice [for the one that has been baptized], although the same apostle says elsewhere: ‘And if I have complete faith, so that I move mountains, but do not have love, it profits me nothing’; and in another place declares that in this love is contained the fullness of the law, when he says: ‘The fullness of the law is love’. Now if these verses seem to contradict the sense of the other verses, what works should one suppose the apostle meant when he said that a person is justified through faith without the works [of the law]? Clearly, the works of circumcision or the sabbath and others of this sort, and not without the works of righteousness, about which the blessed James says: ‘Faith without works is dead’. But in the verse we are treating he is speaking about that person who in coming to Christ is saved, when he first believes, by faith alone. But by adding ‘the works of the law’ he indicates that there is [also] a [work] of grace [which those who have been baptized ought to perform].”
It sounds like Pelagius had an agape paradigm. Isn’t it interesting how Pelagius argues just like a Roman apologist about these verses, even down to the same prooftexts?
Also, I really don’t see the need for him to dispute JBFA if belief in JBFA was not present amongst the early church.
Another interesting point about Pelagius’s Commentary On Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is that he continually speaks of JBFA in a different sense. He just means it like a Wesleyan. The sinner is justified by faith without any works, but then he must be perfect unto death to be finally saved. He opposes those that would say that faith is enough for one’s salvation even after that initial justification.
LikeLike
Robert,
I have reread my comments and I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. You wrote
I want to articulate the Reformed position correctly. I never said faith + regenerate heart = reward of justification. I said that faith + regenerate heart are needed to be saved according to the Reformed view. Is this incorrect?
LikeLike
And it’s not too late to mention that the PCA trickle of Tiber swimmers (of which I believe Jeremy is a drop) can be fairly blamed, at least in part, on: 1) Certain inadequate seminaries and/or professors 2) General doctrinal imprecision/confessional latitude 3) Certain problem presbyteries.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I did respond to you I just didn’t define sectarianism which was a question by which you were trying to bait me. No?
So if you submit to Vatican II, how do you also submit to Vatican I?
LikeLike
Chortles,
Good points, good points. As far as I’m concerned, there’s only one seminary that provides an adequate Reformed education. Anywhere else and you are just learning stamp collecting.
LikeLike
Jeremy, no, sola fide is the Reformed teaching, as in faith plus nothing (really, you’re not clear on this basic Reformed formulation?). But if it were faith plus something then what makes you think the Reformed and the Roman have any differences at all on justification?
LikeLike
Sirs, we should stop assuming that just because someone has trained at a seminary they must understand the Reformed ordo or, in some cases, the gospel itself. I know a pastor who has served on many theological exam committees at presbytery level who would beg to differ. Ecclesiology, sacraments? Basic knowledge of these is the exception.
LikeLike
Don’t know what is more saddening/mystifying
a) People claiming they right now are Reformed, but aren’t
or
b) People claiming they once were Reformed but have left it, but they cannot deliver remotely a decent recap of basic basic basic Reformed theology on here….
LikeLike
Chortles,
On principle, would you say that it is possible to understand Reformed theology and disagree with it at points?
Zrim, I hear you. And I assure you I understand the Reformed teaching on faith alone.
The Reformed believe that we are credited with the perfect righteousness of Christ and declared to be righteous even though we are not. The Reformed believe that God’s grace alone regenerates our hearts allowing us to embrace Christ as freely offered to us in the gospel. The Reformed believe that our justification cannot be lost since there was nothing we could do to get it. Where am I off?
The Reformed also believe that for a person to be saved God must work inside of them, but that this work is not the cause of their justification. Again, where am I off? My point is simply that both the Reformed and the Catholic system teach that a man cannot be saved unless man’s heart has been changed (though we may call it regenerated or infused with agape). Again, what am I missing?
LikeLike
Jeremy, the difference may be between that of inevitability and necessity. The Reformed hold that it is inevitable that those justified by faith alone will also be regenerated, etc. The Roman hold that it is necessary to add something to faith in order to be justified.
LikeLike
Thanks Zrim for the response.
My understanding was that regeneration is a necessity in order to be justified. Isn’t that the Reformed Ordo?
LikeLike
Jeremy, yes.
LikeLike
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
“they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.”
CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
“This disposition, or preparation [see above], is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.”
Jeremy,
These texts are again from the council of Trent, which teaches that one must obey the commandments of God before one can be justified.
This is not what the Reformed mean by regeneration. This is not what the Reformed mean by justification by faith alone.
RCC and Reformed might use similar terms, but the meanings are quite different.
You say that you understand the ordo and justification by faith alone, well, does the above resemble Reformed theology at all? No, it does not. We do not believe in such preparation. We do not believe it is possible to exercise obedience prior to effectual calling/regeneration/justification (this is not a temporal sequence, but a logical distinction).
The RCC thought at the time that RCC theology and Reformed theology were different enough to warrant capital punishment and eternal condemnation. Clearly, we do not believe the same thing.
LikeLike
Jeremy, regeneration is in the Reformed ordo, but to say that it is necessary to be justified makes it sound like justification is in some sense grounded in or caused by regeneration. It isn’t. It’s grounded in the merits of Christ alone and faith is the alone instrument to apply those merits for justification.
LikeLike
Fe Fi Fo Fum, I smell union-confusion and NT W.,maybe. This, of course, circles back to seminary edumacation.
LikeLike
Catholic – to be saved one must have Christ’s righteousness internally infused,
Reformed – to be saved one must have Christ’s righteousness externally imputed unto them.
Big diff.
One concentrates on me, the other Christ.
IOW our justification is either in Christ seated at the right hand of God in heaven or has been cast down to earth by the AntiChrist(p.11 in particular).
Yes, good works follow, but they are truly “good” in the sense that one realizes that they do not earn one anything. Christ earned it all.
Keep in mind that the Reformed Ordo is not explicitly laid out in Scripture. Sure, it is the work of gifted theologians who knew Scripture well, but at the end of the day it is theologizing. EVERYTHING outside of Scripture is fallible for the Reformed Christian. No doctrine is settled. How much trust do you want to put in fallible formulations (by your own admission) of doctrine on matters this important?
Dunno Jeremy. If you have two potatoes and the pope gives you two spuds, how many taters do you REALLy have?
Prots believe in a multitude of counselors. We acknowledge the authority of councils under the word (see Act 15 and the uninspired discussion resulting in a ruling that was binding on the churches for an example).
Prots believe in hashing it out and contra the Roman genius, you are over here using your private judgement trying to persuade our private judgements that the pope’s private judgement is over Scripture and that your seminary prof’s judgement of Luther’s gospel was correct. But how do you know your private judgement that the pope’s judgement is infallible is infallible. You really need to get into the mindless
prayerwheelrosary and holy water thing. Rome really really teaches ignorance is bliss/blessed and the matris devotionis.And to put it bluntly you are proving that in aces and spades in your comments and questions.
Not the unforgivable sin, mind you, but since you and the rest of the acolytes in training over at CtC claim to be the last word on both protestantism and romanism, the arrrogant hubris is a dead give away, much more begging the question as in whom are you going to believe? Bryan’s pseudo sophisticated blather or the real roman deal, implict faith?
Rome usurps the power and place of the Holy Spirit and grace becomes an external ritual and something to be manipulated/operated. Consequently the Scripture and sound doctrine are dead letters that are either mischaracterized or better yet ignored. See your comments above.
Rabid Central European, you’re talking about a certain academy in Budapest, right?
LikeLike
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt
LikeLike
Bob S,
The Budapest Hermeneutic does sound a bit more refined than the purported alternative, which I have yet to find (I assume because it is in hiding).
— Rabid Central European
LikeLike
Dan H, great link.
LikeLike
Joel
Posted October 31, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink
Since Jeremy Tate brought up both 33,000 and 40,000 denominations yet again, I feel the need to post this yet again: [link]
I think the 33,000 denominations thing is nearly essential to the Roman apologetic for Protestants, or else it wouldn’t be so ubiquitous.
33,000 or merely hundreds, the problem of schism remains the same. Not to mention the discussion in this very thread how many graduates of Reformed seminaries have it all wrong too.
Happy Reformation Day.
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/a253
LikeLike
Tom, recommendations? We at least have a committee, does that count for anything? Regards, Andrew
LikeLike
33,000 or merely hundreds, the problem of schism remains the same.
Add that to the list of scandals which “prove” that SS/JBFA can’t be true, the same non sequitur which consequently justifies either 1. one’s atheism or 2. their membership in a certain Italian synagogue of Satan.
LikeLike
Tom,
Sure there are lots of denominations and divisions and that is not necessarily a good thing. But recall that when it came time to address serious flaws within Catholicism, it was Rome that initially drove out the reformers.
I partly blame the RCC for the current proliferation. The Pope in Luther’s and Calvin’s day acted very un-Francis-like (because of all the anathemas, executions, and the like, you know…).
Rome practice(d) ecumenicism like Obama practices bi-partisanship, its the old can’t-we-all-just-get-along-and-agree-with-me. I mean, when the RCC starts a theological debate with, “You may now recant” what do you expect the conscientious reformer to do?
We are not called to unite around error. We are called to unite around the truth.
At least among those 33,000 denominations there are some true churches. That’s more than we can say about Rome where there’s nary a true church to be found.
LikeLike
Mad Hungarian,
Not to mention that within Rome there are far more than 33,000 individual sects and groupings whose only claim to unity is that they tip the hat to Rome. But at least they have a principled means of settling dogma. Just ask CTC.
LikeLike
LOL Italian synagogue of Satan?!?! Awesome.
LikeLike
CDHost, apologies that I don’t have time to engage with you, I find you have good insightful questions and good insights into things going on here on blogdom. I’m pretty entrenched in my views on what the reformation did for Christians in our developing the proper doctrine of justification and the right seperation of justification and sanctification. I’m so glad others in this thread took up the challenge when asked by the Catholic interlocutors. Justification and the doctrine of Scripture is where this dialogue between cats and prots must center. I really do think the doctrines need to driven home to Catholics again and again and again. I have a hard time envisioning Cats and Prots working together as you suggest happens in the religious right, at least, in my lifetime. Likely, any work I may accomplish would only help future generations continue this struggle. I could be wrong. Just my perception is there is a long way to go, and from my interactions at CTC, coming to hear what Catholics are thinking, I am left to draw my own conclusions on what I think their spiritual state is. I’m just a guy who reads and is trying to learn.
Again, I’m trying to stay off these forums. You should think about giving church a chance. The church needs knowledgable, conscientious people who understand the value in taking the time to listen. Thanks for hanging around oldlife. Take care, and sorry my time is so limited. It’s really better I read and stop posting.
Later.
LikeLike
@Andrew B, I feel like you should be wearing a name tag.
@internet, schism is a funny thing because the concept arrives prepackaged for your convenience with an assumption of particular doctrine variance from which constitutes schism if maintained, whether that variance suffers ecclesiastical discpline (as in churches that do that sort of thing) or not (as in the RCC, except when it’s bad PR).
Frex, in the NT church, you want the true church? You find the apostles. Wait, though. Judas was one. What if you were listening to him? You’d have to check him by, what? Oh, you’d go to Peter. Oh, wait, he was not eating with the Gentiles, which means he thinks that they . . . oh, wait, you’d go to Paul, but he didn’t *actually* see Jesus when he was alive, even by his own admission; so how do we know he was even . . . oh wait, I guess we study the scriptures and exercise faith.
But, no, later on, we’ve got the popes. We can go to them. Except when one of them signs off on Arianism. Or teaches monotheletism. Or convenes Vat II.
The problem of course is that everyone’s a schismatic to everyone else, and the “true schismatics” aren’t defined institutionally, really—because even the EOs have apostolic succeession, don’t they? So what’s the big diff? They’ve got the pedigree too. And how would you even *know* succession wasn’t broken? It’s not like you were there or that documents don’t lie.
I suppose to alleviate the aporia one has to, I don’t know, just *assume* things and sally forth. That’s what we prots do, whether we know it or not. And that’s really what the CTCers do. They just won’t admit it.
LikeLike
sean, ding ding ding. Not to mention that if you cotton to introspection of a pietist variety, the ordo is a Christmas gift with a big bow.
LikeLike
Robert, do they care about dogma?
LikeLike
Daniel, true. It’s just, I’ve ventured into the forums are on oldlife’s radar, and I mostly hold back what I want to say. To me, blogdom ain’t so much about debate and scour, but expressing our commonalities and maybe, just maybe, to promote healing. Call my actions here just pent up sadness in the catholic websties I ventured into. I used to think the science v religion was the most interesting debate out there, but the debate in western Christianity is much more, and it’s not just a cerebral exercise, we’re talking real people reading these combos statements and maybe having an effect on who knows who. I should have been a kellerite….(emoticon).
There’s work to do, I support the effort of those with time and who are trying. That’s all. Later.
LikeLike
PS Daniel, nice breaking up between adressing me and the “internet.” I gotta try that, so as to avoid confusion.
Your combox statement in entirety is spot on, per me. Nicely done.
@ internet, There’s usually an occasional typo or two in anything I post, sorry to general readership. I blame my dumb smartphone. Rather, it’s my fat fingers. Enjoy the day oldlifers 🙂
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Well, certainly the SSPX sect and the CTC sect care about dogma, though it looks like that whole principled way thing isn’t helping them come to an accord as to what V2 means and whether it was good or not. The important thing is that somewhere, out there, in the land of
chocolatethat principled distinction is helping the callers sleep well at night as the try and use a quasi-Protestant methodology to fit the square peg of doctrinal certainty into theblackround hole of actual Roman ecclesiology and sacramentalism.The liberals don’t care about dogma, they just appreciate the heft that comes with being able to claim the title Roman Catholic even as they snub their nose at the pope. Any Jansenists that are left are quietly ignoring Rome’s understanding of grace while the average lay RC is using birth control and knows that he should go to mass on Christmas at least, though he doesn’t know or care as to why.
Hey, but at least the mechanism exists to fix all this. Apparently they leave it unplugged.
LikeLike
Tom,
Are those letter-writers to the National Catholic Reporter in good standing in their communion with the Bishop of Rome? If so, what does that tell you?
LikeLike
Kenneth – Yes but there remains in principle a means to know what teaching is right and which is wrong
Erik – In principle I’m 6’4″ 240 with a build like Buzz Lightyear. What does it matter if the reality is different?
LikeLike
Jason Stellman – This is hilarious. Francis is rocking it like a boss, I have expressed nothing but sheer admiration of him. You can keep looking for buyer’s remorse, but you’ll not find it in anything I have said or written.
Erik – Jason is showing a tendency, previously matched only by Doug Sowers on this blog, to generally be on the wrong side of any given issue with his initial impressions. Rome vs. Reformed? check. Liberalism vs. Conservatism? check. Poseur Art vs. Good Art? check. Full Head of Hair vs. Shiny Dome? check.
LikeLike
Jeremy “Big Church” Tate – Did Jesus literally call the founding leaders of your Church, face to face, and give them a mission before he ascended to heaven?
Erik – Question begging par excellence.
LikeLike