I know they speak the same language, but they don’t speak the same Roman Catholicism, which means I sense I could actually talk to Douthat about Rome and have a conversation that resulted in understanding as opposed to a lesson in logic or w-w. For instance, he admits that Roman Catholicism is not as hunky dory as the Callers siren songs suggest:
Ever since the Second Vatican Council, the church has (as most people know) been locked in a kind of low-grade institutional civil war, between a liberal/progressive/modernizing viewpoint that had its moment in the 1960s and 1970s, and the more neoconservative perspective that set the tone for John Paul II and Benedict’s papacies. (I say neoconservative because this was essentially a quarrel over the meaning and implications of Vatican II’s liberalizing reforms, between factions that had both supported them, with critics of Vatican II confined to the sidelines and the fringe.)
As the remarks on accommodation and dissolution above no doubt suggest, I have my own strongly-held views about which side had the better of that argument. But like most long, grinding civil wars it has ultimately left everyone a loser — for a host of reasons but most of all because it has divided a religious worldview that’s supposed to be integrated, and undermined that worldview’s ability to offer itself in fullness to people outside the church’s walls. In particular, instead of the capaciousness, the openness to paradox and mystery, the spirit of both/and rather than either/or that’s supposed to define Christian belief, the Catholic civil war has tended to elevate cruder binaries instead – implying that believers need to choose God’s love and God’s justice, between the immanent and the transcendent, between solidarity with the marginalized and doctrinal fidelity, between the church’s social teaching and its moral stance on issues like abortion, between the Christianity as a force for justice in this world and Christianity as a promise of salvation in the next.
Even so, Douthat is hopeful about Francis’ prospects, which seems to me to be what you expect a Roman Catholic to hope:
. . . for my generation of Catholics, wherever our specific sympathies lie, this inheritance of conflict has created a hunger for synthesis – for a way forward that doesn’t compromise Catholic doctrine or Catholic moral teaching or transform the Church into a secular N.G.O. with fancy vestments, but also succeeds in making it clear that the Catholic message is much bigger than the culture war, that theological correctness is not the only test of Christian faith, and that the church is not just an adjunct (or, worse, a needy client, seeking protection) of American right-wing politics. This desire has been palpable in the Catholic blogosphere for some time, and I think you can see it percolating in many of the publications in whose pages the old intra-Catholic battles were so often fought.
And yet, this is a realistic hope based on knowledge of the vicissitudes of Roman Catholic history (recent at least):
. . . for the moment I think conservatives do have legitimate reasons to be uncertain whether the new thing that Francis is aiming at will ultimately be a synthesis and a breakthrough for the church, or whether what we’re seeing is just the pendulum swinging back toward the progressive style in Catholic theology, in ways that may win the church a temporary wave of good publicity but ultimately just promise to sustain the long post-Vatican II civil war.
Douthat would seem to be able to understand that outsiders don’t see Roman Catholicism as necessarily superior to other Christian brands, even while he clearly sees the church as valuable. That is a long way from the Callers where logical certainty and denial of blemishes abide.
Don’t get me wrong. I think Douthat is himself prone to a kind of optimism that is unwarranted. This is because he does not seem to be aware of the power of liberal Christianity’s genie. For instance, he links to a talk by one of Pope Francis’ closest advisers and registers the kind of dissent that pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics and conservative Protestants shared, believers who thought Christianity was fundamentally a spiritual enterprise that worried more about eternal rather than temporal life:
It reads as a kind of sketch of an agenda for the church in the Francis era, and my reaction to it was not that different from some other conservative Catholic bloggers: It struck me as a sometimes-eloquent exposition of part of the church’s mission, part of the Catholic worldview, part of the church’s understanding of itself – but it seemed to stress those parts at the expense of other aspects, other elements, that are necessary for the whole. The Cardinal’s horizons seemed very worldly, his concerns were almost exclusively economic, his vision of the church’s mission in that arena had a political and left-wing and sometimes half-baked and conspiratorial flavor … and while some of his social-justice themes would have been at home in a document from either of the previous two papacies, he seemed to give short shrift to many of the issues and arenas – devotional and doctrinal, theological and liturgical, social and cultural – that lie close to the heart of Catholicism fully expressed and understood.
It felt like an address, in other words, that could have been delivered by a progressive prelate in 1965 or so, before subsequent developments exposed some of the problems with a Christianity focused too intently on the horizontal rather than the vertical, social injustice rather than personal sin, the secular rather than the transcendent. Even as Francis has been eloquently warning against seeing Catholicism as a worldly “ideology” or letting the church become an N.G.O., his friend and ally’s vision seems to risk falling into a version of exactly those traps.
The mainline Protestant churches have had a hard time walking away from the burdens of progressive Christianity. Perhaps Roman Catholic exceptionalism will allow Rome to escape that burden. But modernity is a demanding taskmaster and earlier papal condemnations of modernity, though too blunt for contexts outside Europe, may have had a better measure of the acids that have eroded Christian witness when churches embrace the “modern” world.
Even so, Douthat is a good example of how Roman Catholics might speak to a mixed audience. Jason and the Callers might even consider that Douthat is a convert from Protestantism. But then, perhaps their Roman Catholicism is not the one to which Douthat belongs.
Old Life 
I don’t think that’s quite accurate. There are 3 types of reformers.
1) Political reformers who wanted to change the people running the church. Whether it be financial corruption, moral corruption, a desire for the church to be more subservient to the state governments they didn’t like the what the church was doing and who they were. Prince Frederick (Luther’s patron), Henry VII or Elizabeth of York (Henry VIII’s mother) would haven fallen into this group.
2) Doctrinal reformers who wanted minor doctrinal reforms but wanted to keep the structure of the Catholic religion mostly intact. Calvin and Luther are in this group.
3) Radical reformers. Who hated the Catholic church and wanted to create an entirely different type of structure for Christianity.
It my position that for 5 centuries there were 3 groups of reformers / rebels existed. They mistrusted each other, they disliked each other and during those centuries they worked with the Catholic church in holding each other down. What happened in the Reformation, what made it unique from the rebellions prior to it, is these groups decided to work together to achieve their objectives. They felt there was enough urgency that they were willing to risk the dangers they saw in each other.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I am not sure I would necessarily disagree with this guy. You seem to think that I, or the CTC guys in general, are looking for a Catholicism that’s the Roman equivalent of Old School, psalms-only-singing, strict subscriptionist, Calvin-contra-mundum Presbyterianism. While I can’t speak for anyone else, that’s not what I personally am looking for at all.
I have written in praise of Francis several times, calling him an orthodox liberal like me, and yet you still seem to go out of your way to detect some kind of nail-biting and hand-wringing on my part.
For the record, while it seems as though the aftermath of V2 has been one of confusion and strife, I do applaud the Church’s aim to shift its posture toward the modern world.
All that to say, I personally do not resonate with your claim that I am a member of a wing of the CC that the Catholics you read would not recognize. I am not longing for V1 Catholicism, nor am I lamenting V2. Alls I want is true reverence in the liturgy, and a whole lot of compassion for the needy the rest of the time.
Hardly a fringe niche, right?
LikeLike
Luther and Calvin worked together with the anabaptists?
Right, are we drinking goat’s milk straight from the cow like Eric or what?
You need to talk to the boys over at CtC. They do history like that.
LikeLike
While I can’t speak for anyone else, that’s not what I personally am looking for at all.
Who knew?
But you do?
Right.
Gotta laugh.
Prots choosing churches according to their own sinful and fallible PJ is verboten, but not for Bry’s understudy. You did clear this with the head demon or was it just one of the satellite offices?
And no bitching.
Prots are malevolent, romanists are merely malcontent.
LikeLike
No Luther and Calvin worked with the political reformers. Other doctrinal reformers worked with radicals. These were large camps.
LikeLike
CD, I know you take great pride in the fact that you are the resident/token atheist on good terms with everybody here, but really.
All your assertion does is remind me of something like ‘conservatives think Phoebe wrote the book of Hebrews’.
Ahem, speaking of rabbit trails, can we say Harvey?
LikeLike
Jason, but you went all in on papal supremacy — remember, you have the mechanism to fix what ails Protestantism? That’s a common theme of the Callers, though how it works with Noam Chomsky is anyone’s guess.
Which indicates you are fairly confused about the historical contexts of the doctrines you have swallowed, hook line and sinker. You may like Francis and the modern world, but that’s not what papal supremacy ever stood for.
I guess the Lord is not finished with you yet.
LikeLike
Alls I want is true reverence in the liturgy, and a whole lot of compassion for the needy the rest of the time.
Wowser, that’s it? Isn’t that like buying a Mercedes because you like the floor mats and the sun visors — without regard to cost or any other factors? I believe there are PCUSA and Anglican congregations that might have met your felt needs. Sacramentology? No big deal — just be reverent. Praying to saints and Mary? Just be sincere. Wow, again.
LikeLike
Sorry Jason. I always suspected it was mostly about aesthetics and social issues (Bono w-w). You’ve confirmed this.
LikeLike
Last time I visited an OP the hymns were so reverent I almost fell asleep (on D.G.’s shoulder, no less). I know they have Deacons to tend to the needs of the poor, too.
These are not the selling points of CTC.
LikeLike
DGHART,
have the peeps at called to communion made claims that the magesterium prevents all controversy from occurring in the Church? That would seem like an odd argument considering the long string of doctrinal disputes in the 2000 year history of the Church. The advantage to the magesterium is not that it prevents disputes…. But that it settles them. What’s problematic with protestants is not that they display division but that there is no principled way to settle the issues that divide them.
The Magesterium doesn’t perform the function of anti-virus software. It doesn’t prevent disputes like Norton Anti-Virus prevents your computer from shutting down. Rather, the magesterium functions as a kind of divine referee and “league commissioner” that can step in once a dispute arises, make the call, and then put the ball back in play. The anti virus software (preventative in nature) is really a better analogy for Church discipline. We have all repeatedly admitted that our Church can change its discipline and even err in matters of discipline. So no surprise that today we are having problems reigning in liberals and radtrads which is currently creating a type of “civil war”. We had a very similar problem with the Arian heresy. However, one can rest assured that as long as the magesterium remains in place (which it will until the end of time) there will always be someone to make the call at the end of the day! Will that call result in schism? Who knows? Its happened before! But the faithful know that as long as we stay in union with the bishop of Rome the HS will lead us into all truth and we will.never collectively fall into error.
Is there some division within the CC? Yup. Is there some division within the 150-300 major denominations of Protestantism? Yup. So what’s the difference? Our disagreements have a principled way of being resolved…. Yours do not. Your divisions are hundreds and hundreds of years old and will never be resolved… Ours are barely 50 years old and can be solved at whatever time the ump makes the call.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Does the guy you cite, who’s a Catholic, deny papal primacy?
And after all this time, you’re still refusing to see the nuance that we have been arguing for. No one claims that the Magisterium “solves the problems” you keep identifying with the CC, any more than you think Jesus’ authority magically eliminated dissent among his kinsmen. Please try to argue against a position I actually hold.
And if I could sit down and chat with this bloke, I’m sure we’d agree that we embrace exactly the same Catholicism. You’re trying to paint me as some fringe lunatic conservative, but the label doesn’t stick.
iViva la revolucio’n!
LikeLike
Darryl,
Not if you were as rude and uncharitable to him as you are to us, as for example today, when you uncharitably treat my asking you to disambiguate your question as “ducking” the question. I’ve explained a number of times here (and still hold out the offer) that if you forgo the nastiness, we can have a real conversation, and I don’t have to limit myself merely to pointing out your logical fallacies. But so long as that’s your m.o. the “logic lesson” form of interaction is about the only thing possible.
The problem with that claim is that we’ve never denied “blemishes,” so, here you go after a straw man. And sloppiness regarding unsubstantiated accusations is just one reason why with us you can’t presently “have a conversation that result[s] in understanding.”
Either that, or Douthat is a journalist, and we’re theologians and philosophers. Not every difference in manner of speech entails a different Church. It could be different charisms or gifts or disciplines within one and the same Catholic Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
I wonder if’n Stelly swam the Tiber for the big RC money and “better” respect. His OPC (church) was a small room, rented in a bland office building in a boring city. It’s not far from where I live. The Catholics own property in every city in the US and they got some mighty luxurious buildings. Called to Confusion indeed.
LikeLike
Chortles: be careful what you wish for, Would you prefer that Stellman have stayed in the PCA and joined the Redeemer Network? Or found “reverence” with Leithart’s liturgical ecumenicism?
LikeLike
Enter The Hat — right on cue. Bryan, disambiguate this:
Alls I want is true reverence in the liturgy, and a whole lot of compassion for the needy the rest of the time.
Is that all there is to it? Doesn’t sound like “theologians and philosphers” are required for this reductio. Maybe just a worship director and a soup kitchen manager.
LikeLike
I am jealous of Bryans “In the peace of Christ” finisher. I need to think of something like that to type out everytime I destroy my online interlocutors with terrible cold calculated logic. Something like “off with your head!” or “bow to my greatness”…… I’ll keep thinking it through……
LikeLike
Wholey, you read my mind. I’ve heard TKNY can be pretty reverent after a fashion. Deaconesses, nuns, sisters of mercy — what’s the big diff?
LikeLike
@Kenneth- The key to a good finish is irony. How about: “Abide in Me”?
LikeLike
Chortles: If you ever see TKNY’s communion service, you would run screaming to the Lutherans too. He treats the sacraments like he treats exegesis — and it ain’t pretty.
LikeLike
Igasx,
nah, way to snarky. I don’t think its the irony that makes it awesome but the niceness of it all. Maybe something like “I will always love you” or “but I respect your opinion”. Oh yes….. I like that….. The abide in me thing was OK but borders blasphemy and would just make everyone creeped out a bit to much.
but I respect your opinion
kenwins
LikeLike
Hey, I know you guys hate the BeeBees and they bug me too, but this entry is correct: TKNY’s dancing Trinity doctrine is junk theology. Whatever C.S. Lewis meant by divine dance, he wasn’t doing dogmatics. Using it passing as one thing, but to use it as an analogy for the Divine Persons is dangerous.
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/11/tim-kellers-divine-dance-trinitarian-twist
And for a Lutheran link on the same topic, see:
(Even if you don’t care about Keller, click the Lutheran link anyway.)
LikeLike
Ah, the “at least we have a principled way” argument rears its head again:
LikeLike
The whole principled way argument would work well on broadway:
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Jesus as a Beta male creeps me out. Reminds me of the passive/aggressive males we see in society.
LikeLike
On the lighter side… as I read Jason’s statement:
–Alls I want is true reverence in the liturgy, and a whole lot of compassion for the needy the rest of the time –
… I thought, is that alls there is, my friend? http://youtu.be/LCRZZC-DH7M
LikeLike
It ain’t quite babblefish yet, but watch for the IPO.
Not if you were as rude and uncharitable to him as you are to us, as for example today, when you uncharitably treat my asking you to disambiguate your question as “ducking” the question. I’ve explained a number of times here (and still hold out the offer) that if you forgo the nastiness, we can have a real conversation, and I don’t have to limit myself merely to pointing out your logical fallacies. But so long as that’s your m.o. the “logic lesson” form of interaction is about the only thing possible.
Translation:
Not if you were as evasive and dismissive to him as you are around here, as for example today, when you hypocritically treat my asking you to answer your question as “uncharitable”.
I’ve explained a number of times here (and still hold out the offer) that if you forgo the obscurantism and mis-characterization, we can have a real conversation, and I don’t have to limit myself merely to pointing out your scriptural, historical and logical inconsistencies. But so long as that’s your m.o. ridiculous “interaction” is about the only thing possible.
And after all this time, you’re still refusing to see the nuance that we have been arguing for.
Yeah, speakin of which: SS is nothing more than an anabaptist burning in the bosom.
Which is after all, the hinge upon which Bryan’s apostolic
lustenvy twisted, crashed and burned when accosted by the Utah missionaries. No big credibility gap the size of the Gran Can from the get go of CTC there.we’re theologians and philosophers
Yep, that explains the lies and equivocations quite nicely.
Like the proverbial silver lining, eventually honesty peeks through.
What I want to know though, is forget about the gold bug, who’s got da bones?
“Yo Jupiter, what did you find down there? You finished digging yet?”
LikeLike
@Bob S
Not sure what you mean at all. Closest I can think of is Harnack’s theory that Priscilla wrote Hebrews. And I wouldn’t call Harmack a conservative.
LikeLike
Stylistically this is more apropos for Stelly — Is This It?
LikeLike
Is there some division within the CC? Yup. Is there some division within the 150-300 major denominations of Protestantism? Yup. So what’s the difference? Our disagreements have a principled way of being resolved…
Kenneth, only they don’t. So what you have is a pious theory that never has any legs or teeth. But we also have a principled way of resolving disputes. And so the difference is actually that where yours never delivers, ours doesn’t build up hopes only to be dashed. While you pretend there’s unity, we live with the difficulties that come with sola scriptura and sinners in the semi-eschatological age.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, actually your worse off than you think. You have a way to resolve divisions in your church but the Vatican doesn’t use them. It’s like the pope having all those merits and not dispensing them on the schmucks in purgatory.
You are like Yankee’s fans who think their team was the best even though they didn’t make the playoffs.
LikeLike
CD,
It was a comment I once heard in from a minister in a P&R church, the point being it’s just about as pointless as yours arguing for Luther and Calvin working with the anabaptists; i.e. Wittenburg and Geneva signing an accord with Munster.
Or CTC signing a statement affirming transparency and consistency as a cardinal virtue to be upheld on the pain of going straight to hell, instead of purgatory.
After all, we got somebody above rattling on about
Alls I want is true reverence in the liturgy . . .
Obviously the finer points of the reformed doctrine of worship have escaped our
poseurcorrespondent in Kirkland, but even a fellow papist like Eire has a glimmer of what constitutes idolatry.LikeLike
Jason, somehow I missed the nuance in all of your posts about the Rome’s superiority to Protestantism (not to mention your rummaging for bumper stickers from the church fathers). I also missed it when you described Protestantism’s claims for the infallibility of Scripture. We have nuance. But you refuse to see it.
And just so you know, the doctrine of high papalism was never the only position of Rome. Primacy maybe but you needed a council to get you from three popes to one and the pope displayed his gratitude by never calling another council which he said he’d do.
You don’t really nuance your position or mine. You try to show up your former believers. I’ve never seen Ross Douthat do that even if he does believe in high papalism. But I actually think he’d be open to talking about conciliarism or even Edgardo Mortara because he is not the zealot that you’ve turned out to be. Noam Chomsky would hide.
LikeLike
Bryan, at least you can tell when I’m being uncharitable. You can’t tell when you are with your sanctimonious “in the peace of Christ.” If you don’t see how you make points that others find objectionable and highly debatable, you are even more clueless than you seem.
You told me to ask you and I did. You evaded. You could have easily answered the question and admitted blemishes. You may admit them but you never feature them. You never fully disclose. In the context in which you are dealing, trying to present the merits of Rome, you are at fault not to mention the serious problems that confront anyone who converts to Rome.
In other lines of work, that’s called bait and switch.
LikeLike
Zrim,
what do you mean it never gets used? There have been controversies squashed and settled all throughout history by the magesterium.
LikeLike
DGHART,
that’s a bogus charge. The magesterium and the papacy has settled NUMEROUS controversies all the way back to Nicea.
PS
don’t be mad at Jason just because the ECFs don’t sell in your sect. Ultimately, nobody cares about history in the Prot world because they know, deep down, those saints of times past are a little to catholic for comfort.
LikeLike
KLOSS, is that why my old southern Presby pastor quotes the church fathers all the time and leads in all the creeds? Try again, o aptly named.
LikeLike
Kenneth – Is there some division within the 150-300 major denominations of Protestantism? Yup. So what’s the difference? Our disagreements have a principled way of being resolved…. Yours do not. Your divisions are hundreds and hundreds of years old and will never be resolved… Ours are barely 50 years old and can be solved at whatever time the ump makes the call.
Erik – Never mind that as a Protestant I have no problem interacting with fellow Protestants and noticing that we have an awful lot in common. There haven’t been a lot of Protestant vs. Protestant wars fought that I can recall.
Who is this new Kenneth fellow? He seems to combine the logic of Doug Sowers and the charm of Tom Van Dyke into one lovable package.
In the radicalism of Jason,
Erik
LikeLike
I was trying, Darryl, really. I would love to come to some common ground, some level of understanding with you. But you just won’t have it. I give up.
LikeLike
MP,
Jason was in the PCA, not the OPC. This seems to be where most of the Callers come from, actually.
According to Jeremy Tate the OPC is so small that you need a microscope to even see its members so most of them get squished on the sidewalk by big people shoes before they even have time to convert.
LikeLike
Jason,
That one’s easy: Stop proselytizing Presbyterian & Reformed people and conduct yourself like a cradle who rarely proselytizes anyone. As Francis himself said recently, aggressive Catholic proselytizing is “pious nonsense”. Just mind your own business and we irrelevant P&R folks would go back to gazing at our navels. You guys stir up way more anti-Catholic polemics than would take place if you just kept quiet and catechized your own woefully-undercatechized fellow Catholics.
LikeLike
Yo Kenny,
Ever heard of HO Olds’ Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship?
Didn’t think so.
Yeah, it’s out of print (he summarizes a lot of it here), but the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Gutenberg revolution over lapped. All those scholars with their biblical and patristic manuscripts fleeing the eastern AntiChrist came west and the rest was history.
No, I never heard that as a romanist, but you still ought to get out a bit.
LikeLike
Erik: You guys stir up way more anti-Catholic polemics than would take place if you just kept quiet and catechized your own woefully-undercatechized fellow Catholics.
Now that’s change we can believe in!
LikeLike
J
Even further stop proselytizing Presbyterian & Reformed people into the ritualistic sacramental experiential religion of Rome using word centered logocentric means. It clashes big time. You come across as a prot wanna be. You’re supposed to be telling people to just get baptized, go to mass and say their rosary and it’s all good. And first, last and always remember implicit faith. It will never let you down even if Darryl does.
LikeLike
Chortles,
I think that’s great… But lets be honest…. By and large… As a whole… protestants couldn’t care less about anything that happened before the reformation. I could quote numerous well known frustrated protestant professors to make the point but I’m sure it’s not necessary.
Erik,
nice to meet you sir. I have always enjoyed reading your third person dialogs with yourself. Reminds me of the good old days when my mother would read me such classics as “Hank the Cowdog” or “the Bernstein Bears”.
I think that it’s great that you are an “ecumenical” protestant. You can hardly be a polemical one and have any friends these days. I wasn’t trying to say that you can not get along… Only that you will never be able to find an anchor for orthodoxy that can settle doctrinal matters authoritatively. There will never be any kind of great protestant unity… Only further and further divisions.
Also, I can’t help but think it odd that DGHART literally does everything he can do get “Jason and the Callers” over here (picture a toddler stomping his feet and waving both hands in the air screaming at the top of his lungs) and then whenever they show up you all insult them and tell them to go away! LOL what’s up with that?!?
LikeLike
Kenneth, I didn’t say The Principle never get used. I said it doesn’t deliver on the over-realized promises of its more enthusiast adherents.
LikeLike
Zrim,
OK well I am sure there is some truth to that. The RCC isn’t a monolith and I remember hearing a couple of debates and such where the RC argument made our side of the Tiber sound like a unified wonderland. Why do you believe in sola scriptura?
LikeLike
Jason, stop blogging about Protestantism. Easy.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, then get your spiritual father to put the genies back in the pre-Vatican 2 bottle. I dare you.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, what’s up with that is that Jason and the Callers only respond with logic and paradigms while rooting for the Yankees. BTW, you’re one of the Body Snatchers too.
LikeLike
Kenneth, because they revoke your rrrrrradical 2k card and change the secret handshake if you don’t.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Your assumption that I’m being “sanctimonious,” when there is a more charitable explanation available, is an example of being uncharitable.
Here you are assuming that I don’t see that others find points I make “objectionable and highly debatable.” But, in actuality, I’m quite aware of it. So here you are assuming ignorance on my part. And that’s another example of not being charitable.
No, I asked you to clarify your question. If it were evasion, I wouldn’t still be willing to answer the question if you disambiguated the question.
As I have explained before, there are millions of things each human hasn’t said. But none of things I know but have not said falsifies any claim I have made or refutes any argument I have made. You presume that my goal is to construct an encyclopedia, when, as I have explained to you before, my intention is only to lay out sound arguments.
What serious problem do you think I have not mentioned but have an obligation to mention?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
List of RCC problems facing converts to Rome, to name a few:
http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=435
The OPC does not accept the books known as the Apocrypha as the Word of God.
The OPC believes that the Word of God in the Scriptures is the supreme authority.
The OPC believes that church councils and tradition are not on a par with the Scriptures, but are required to submit to the Scriptures.
The OPC believes that salvation is all of grace, persons being justified by grace through faith alone.
The OPC believes that good works do not merit salvation but flow out of having been saved.
The OPC believes that even those who attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do, which is to deny that “Saints” have done works of supererogation (that is, works above and beyond the call of duty).
The OPC believes that Jesus Christ died once for all for the elect, who were predestined before the foundation of the world.
The OPC believes that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church and that the Pope of Rome cannot, in any sense, be head thereof.
The OPC believes there are only two sacraments ordained by the Lord Jesus for the church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The OPC believes that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper remain bread and wine and that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is superstition and idolatry.
The OPC believes that the popish sacrifice of the mass is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.
The OPC believes that heaven and hell are the only two places men go in death, and purgatory is denied as being an interim place.
LikeLike
What serious problem do you think I have not mentioned but have an obligation to mention?
Think?
Oh, that’s right. Prots can’t truly know anything because all they have is their fallible PJ, while “he who hears you, hears me applies” ipso facto to Mr. Cross’s utterances.
But we’ll take a stab at it anyway.
First and foremost, Mr. Cross at this late date hasn’t yet been able to give us the genuine protestant doctrine of SS – but only continually perverts and castigates it as anabaptist – the ignorance of which same fundamental protestant doctrine was two, his whole excuse/raison d’etre for leaving reformed protestantism in the first place.
Three, nevertheless Mr. Cross’s self professed expert qualifications to pontificate at length on all things P&R, as well as all things Romish, is unquestionable in his eyes.
Four, he continues all the while, in all this, to champion his reasonableness, honesty and charity, particularly in propounding his opponents’s POV even as he points out the prot reciprocation is uncharitable, intransigent and horror of horrors, “question begging”.
That he still, at this late date,
pretends to beis unaware of this state of affairs, speaks volumes.If not in regard to his character, at least to his competence and credibility.
LikeLike
Kenneth, even if those saints of times past were “a little too catholic for comfort,” they certainly would have burned Francis at the stake.
LikeLike
DGHART,
what’s your beef with logic and paradigms? How would you like them to respond? Heck, how would you like any of us Body Snatchers (I’m just gonna own that without asking what it means lol) to dialog with you? What are the DGHART rules of engagement? As far as Pope Francis killing the V2 genies I think they are already on their way. I fully expect the post concilliar crises to not only be over in my lifetime… But in the next 20 years or so.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’ve been meaning to ask…. What does 2k mean?
wholesome,
I’m not so sure…. The Pope recently had some shocking comments to make on V2 that have given GREAT hope to trade everywhere… We will see….
LikeLike
1) Your fabricated history through time. The “find the church that Jesus founded and follow it through time” argument depends crucially on the person making it either be ignorant of history or ignoring it. This comes up again and again in the CtC apologetic. Theological or philosophical claims are constantly made as if they were historical claims. “What happened” is a question of historical fact, period. Statements about what happened should be based on best historical evidence unless heavily qualified to indicate these are theological points. The CtC apologetic depends crucially on this fundamental dishonesty about a fabricated history.
2) Your use of the word “protestant” throughout your arguments makes heavy use of equivocation. Many of the arguments fall apart if you were to simply to use specific terms like: conservative presbyterians, evangelicals, traditional reformed theology, majority protestant positions… I think you have an obligation to qualify your use of Protestant given all the vastly different ways you use the term. And obviously this applies on assertions about what Protestants believe as well those should be qualified based on which subsets.
3) Similarly ambiguity about the use of the word “Catholic”. When talking about bodies CtC often uses to mean Western, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Other places you just mean Western Rite. Other places you mean traditionalist western rite Catholics who are politically conservative, i.e. a sect within Catholicism of a few million at best. Catholic should be qualified.
4) And keeping with this. A more accurate history of doctrinal statements. CtC often makes doctrinal statements about the nature of the church that are disagreed with by large number of Catholics at other points in time. Even if you believe those sources to be wrong they should be footnoted as existing. Often this is complicated so articles giving a history of a doctrine might precede articles arguing for a point about a doctrine. Or make claims no stronger about these doctrines than they are a Catholic position and one the author holds.
etc…
LikeLike
Bob S
The anabaptists mainly came out of the Taborite, Zwickau Prophets and Swiss Brethren. The Zwickau Prophets and Swiss Brethren both came from the Zurich movement. Moreover I was talking Radical Reformers more generally. Reformed Waldenses I’d say pretty clearly are a cross breed with Calvin’s ideas. Polish Brethren come out of Polish Reformed movement and from there the Socions.
Ultimately the radicals make Protestantism more than just a group of nationalists seizing power over the churches from a group of internationalist / feudalists. Without the radicals and their ideas of freedom of conscience and an elect church what would Protestantism have been? I understand that you think all that destruction and death was justified by disagreements like sola fide vs. justification comes from faith plus works. But for most people… no it wouldn’t have been. But what the Radicals aimed for: the end of the use of murder and genocide as the primary means to resolve religious disputes that gave and gives the Reformation it’s moral legitimacy.
The Radicals are what make Protestantism so much more than what the Magisterial Reformers intended. What is Calvin without later Protestantism? Without the latter centuries, he’s a petty tyrant over a city who built a governing system that didn’t last a few decades? Why would anyone care about opinions were it not for the much broader effects of the Reformation?
LikeLike
Bryan, Vatican 2, for starters. At least the SSPXers are honest about it. You spin it even though you want what the SSPXers want. As for your lead singer, Jason, I’d love to hear you and him sing a duet about Noam Chomsky.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, one way of interacting is not to be a Roman Catholic bigot. In case you haven’t noticed, your magisterium backed a long way away from its previous views of schismatics, heretics, and unbelievers. See Vatican 2. Jason and the Callers act like Vat 2 never happened in all sorts of ways, but especially in the way they “dialogue” with Protestants. If they were Jesuit priests in 1920s London, their act might be plausible. But, viva la revolucion baby, it is a new day in Protestant-RC interactions, one where most of the RC church views Protestants as fellow believers in some sense, and don’t go around pointing out our errors and defects. Sometimes they even marvel at evangelical ingenuity. (Some may have a grudging tolerance, and may really think Protestants are going to hell. But they know the drill that the old polemics of conservative Roman Catholicism are behind. I write this from Notre Dame — about to attend a seminar — and no one here is going to talk to me about the defective logic and paradigms of Calvinism.
Plus, many Roman Catholics can roll their eyes about the hierarchy and magisterium, and concede, like Douthat, that the church is a mixed bag that finally needs to be taken on faith, not on air-tight logic.
Sure, if Jason and the Callers want to set up a site that warns people about the dangers of Protestantism, fine. It’s a free country. But to call that enterprise a Call to Communion is like Mark Levine claiming that he is merely trying to persuade liberals to join the GOP.
LikeLike
Darryl,
The dishonesty charge is an ad hominem. We don’t “spin” VII. Nothing we’ve said about VII is false — and if you think something we said about VII is false, feel free to show that it is false. (Assertions are a dime a dozen.) If there is something about VII that we haven’t said but that you think ought to be said, then please be specific. Hand-waving is unhelpful, and hand-waving accusations are uncharitable.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
You wrote:
I propose a discussion with protestants (here at this blog, or elsewhere) exploring the motives behind the website “Called to Communion” and all those associated with it, in light of your church’s most recent council, Vatican II. As a protestant, your efforts with that website seems a bit pointless, in light of Vatican II. Since you are putting yourself forward here as an expert on your church’s Vatican II, you seem to be a most appropriate person to represent your side of the argument.
I can see an argument for Protestants and Catholics to dialogue on the internet and in public. What I don’t understand is your underlying assertion that that dialogue must entail proselytizing on your part. So, for example, you should find another name for your community for dialogue, instead of “called to communion.” That name is an immediate turn-off for anyone wishing to engage in genuine dialogue with you or anyone associated with that website.
For me, as I read combox statements here and at other theology blogs, I find there to be widespread disagreement as to what Vatican II means for the lay catholic. Some seem to agree with it very strongly (that seems rare), whereas others try to explain it away as a “pastoral” council or something or other. As a protestant, it means that when a Catholic speaks of unity, it’s simply a smoke screen, and when the issues are truly discussed, there is widespread disagreement on something (the most recent council of your church) that if there was real unity, there would not be such disagreement as we see here on internet chatrooms designed for peoples of different religious convictions to discuss differences.
My point simply here, is, I think your views on Vatican II are worth exploring, in light of what your aims are as academic editor of Called to Communion.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Make a biblical case for big tent religion akin to Roman Catholicism.
LikeLike
Simply put, Bryan, many of us view the whole CtC effort as a marketing job — a glossy finish sell sheet that ignores the warts and the long, often unflattering history of Rome. With the zeal of (very) recent converts you seem to us to see/hear/speak no evil of Rome. You will find no such approach here. Prostestantism’s many failings are on full view, and we may even blame some of them for your turning to idolatry and superstition. And, yes, galling is the triumphalism and supposed expertise of a bunch of laymen whose Catholic tenures are best measured in months rather than years or decades.
LikeLike
Bryan missed out on his calling. Why be a college professor when you can be a first grade schoolmarm?
In case everyone is missing the point, we don’t have to meet Bryan, Jason, & the Callers standards because we can find other people in their own RCC who will accept us as we are (including Pope Francis). If we have goodwill, desire to do something about youth unemployment, and occasionally visit the old to relieve their loneliness, we’re good. The Callers can put that in their pipes and smoke it.
LikeLike
Jason Stellman (from another thread) – 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
Case in point: In his new blog for (not necessarily Christian) hipsters he chooses to highlight his love for a Woody Allen movie. O.K., great, I like Woody. So does he highlight “Annie Hall”? No, not that one. Must be “Manhattan”, then? No. O.K., “Crimes and Misdemeanors”? Nope. Must be “Match Point”? No. Oh, we’re going way back to “Love and Death”, then? No. Oh, of course, “Midnight in Paris”. Not that one, either. So which is it?
“Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39PuFOTjtk8
Consider the man card revoked.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen aesthetic judgment this bad since Jack suggested that Miles drink Merlot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiOuroHPxRQ
LikeLike
Bryan, in the above comment, I laid out a way forward for what I see here in theology chatrooms which I think could be beneficial for all interested and engaged parties. For me personally, however, the issue with RCism will always be perspicuity of Scripture. I simply fall strongly in line with WCF chapter 1, especially sections 5 and 7. I think that’s something I would dialogue about for a whole, if I had time. Scripture is clear enough at explaining the way of salvation without needing your pope to explain the nuances. That doesn’t mean all things on Scripture are alike plain. Somethings are hard to understand, and indeed, genuine differences of opinion can exist among Christians. The idea that all Christians must unite around your Bishop is an incorrect way forward for ecumenism. I believe that strongly. Take care.
LikeLike
Erik, unthanks for sharing that. Gaw. This shows JJS has a real penchant for self reinvention, and hipster mightnottahearduvitism. What/where’s next?
http://heavyforthevintage.com/stuff-like/
LikeLike
DGHART,
what does it mean to be a “Roman Catholic bigot”? I think Calvinism is a heretical sect that has separated it self from the Church that Christ established. I think that Calvinists can still be Christians depending on if they are invincibly ignorant (ie small children mentally handicapped people born secluded on some.island). If that still qualifies as bigotry I don’t know how you can ask me to compromise my position just so that my speech doesn’t offend you. I proselytize because I want you to go to heaven… Not because I want to embarrass you or make you mad or whatever. Vatican 2 didn’t change the way God views heretics and schism. It merely emphasized our position on the individuals who are validly (maybe or maybe not fruitfully) baptized and remain in a state of ignorance about the Church. Those people really are Christians and belong to the soul of the Church. Those whom are validly baptized and are not invincibly ignorant stand damned. Vatican 2 hasn’t changed one iota of Catholic teaching. It has changed discipline and instituted many novel and wack pastoral programs…. But that’s about it. I have no problem reconciling the documents with Tradition. The SSPX only has a problem with a few passages and those to a large extent don’t possess binding doctrinal content. Cardinal Bransmuller (an expert on V2) said the following discussing the sspx
Cardinal Brandmuller told reporters, “We hope that the Holy Father’s attempt to reunify the church succeeds.”
One thing that must be kept in mind is the differing degree of acceptance and obedience Catholics owe to different types of church teaching, which range from absolutely embracing the teaching in the creed to accepting the principles of Catholic social teaching and trying to put them into practice in a variety of social and political situations, said the cardinal, who is the former president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences.
“There is a huge difference between a great constitution,” like the Vatican II constitutions on the church, the liturgy and divine revelation, “and simple declarations,” like the Vatican II declarations on Christian education and the mass media.
“Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents” for the SSPX — those on religious freedom and on relations with non-Christians — “do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them,” the cardinal said.
“So I don’t understand why our friends in the Society of St. Pius X concentrate almost exclusively on these two texts. And I’m sorry that they do so, because these are the two that are most easy to accept if we consider their canonical nature” as non-binding, he said .
I think that you guys doth protest to much when it comes to the implications of our latest council. Confusion always follows an ecumenical council and Vatican 2 is no different. The liberal hijacking of Vatican 2 is rattling off its dying breath and “trads” are booming at record numbers. At some point the magesterium will have to address the controversy head on and perhaps produce a V2 syllabus of errors or some such thing. The healing process in the Church has already begun…
“BUT WAIT” you will say.. “Pope Francis is a flaming liberal and will probably put you right back where you were in the darker days of the “spirit” of Vatican 2!”
not so fast Dr Hart! Check out this newly published letter
Dear Archbishop Marchetto,
With this letter I want to be present with you and unite myself to the presentation of the book “Primato pontificio ed episcopato. Dal primo millennio al Concilio ecumenico Vaticano II” (Pontifical primacy and the epicopacy: from the first millennium to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council) Please consider me present in spirit.
The topic of the book is an homage to the love that you have for the Church, a love that is, at the same time, loyal and poetic. Loyalty and poetry are not an object for the market: they cannot be bought or sold, they simply are virtues rooted in a heart of a son who feels the Church to be his Mother; or, to be more precise, and to say it with a familiar Ignatian “tone”, as “Holy Mother Hierarchical Church”. [HIERARCHICAL!]
You have manifested this love in many ways, including correcting an error or imprecise comment on my part – and I thank you for that from my heart – but above all it is manifest in all its purity in the studies on the Second Vatican Council. I once told you, dear Archbishop Marchetto, and today I wish to repeat it, that I consider you to be the best interpreter of the Second Vatican Council. I know that this is a gift from God, but I also know that you made it bear fruit.
I am grateful to you for all the good that you do for us with your witness of love for the Church and I ask the Lord that he reward it abundantly.
I ask you please not to forget to pray for me. May Jesus bless you and the Holy Virgin protect you.
Vatican, 7 October 2013
Fraternally,
Francis
bad news for those liberals
LikeLike
I’m generally irritated at Darryl, for making me care all over again. Bryan and Jason simply don’t know because they weren’t there and their cradle training in evanjellyfish just won’t let them go and Scott Hahn has told them; ‘that’s ok, they (RC) really need the prot-catholic’. The only way CtC imagined Francis was as an unfortunate result of Vat II, now they want to sell that they’re on board, granted Bryan is going to sell it as an example of religious piety that has more to do with submission to the church than embracing Francis the way he could Benedict, but rather than celebrants of Rome in it’s German glory, now the narrative is one of duty bound soldier.
It really isn’t that hard, nor does it have to be. Ratzinger was appalled at the immediate results of Vat II, per the student revolts. Kung, his better and compatriot, in assisting the German Bishops at the council thought the revolts were great. Ratzinger made an effort and rose up the ranks in the clerical political machine and eventually rose to head of the CDF under JPII, as a reform advocate and Ratzinger’s whole life pursuit was to reinterpret the dominant pastoral interpretation of Vat II, up to and including ‘defrocking’ Kung(the guy who got him his first teaching job and introduced him to those in power at the bishop’s office so that he was a participant at Vat II) for opposing papal infallibility and primacy. The trads experienced somewhat of a renaissance from about ’89 to 2005′ but then an ever encroaching modernity and egalitarianism, which Vat II was called to accommodate and deal with, finally penetrated the Vatican in the guise of the Ratzinger’s Butler and even Ratzinger knew this couldn’t last and so he quit. Enter Francis, a true child of Vat II but a Jesuit who’s very religious dialectic would allow him to dot his I’s and cross his T’s dogmatically all the while he pastorally implements all the structure and posture changes as well as a healthy dose of his Latin American liberation theology that were the fruits of Vat II. Francis: ‘I’m a ‘son of the church’ now let’s get on with what the Holy Spirit intended with Vat II. The Novus Ordo is the normative, I’m calling a synod of the bishops, and we ARE including the laity in our interpretation of explaining the deposit. By the way the pointy hats and garish vestments and ruby slippers aren’t going to be the markers of a pastoral and servant church and I’m not living in the papal apartments and I drive a jalopy, shouldn’t you?”
LikeLike
The problem with that “stuff we like” page is that I don’t think that there is much there that precedes the Obama administration. Really? Are these guys 16 or pushing 30? If you are serious about art and aesthetics you need to go back in time a bit. Maybe read a book or watch a (gasp) black-and-white movie. Do the work. Build an intellectual foundation and framework if you want to be taken at all seriously.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Keep apologizing for Francis throughout his tenure and send us a picture. You’ll look just like Mr. Pretzel. This is the Pope who will keep on giving.
Thanks for telling us we’re going to hell, though. That’s refreshing and more than the Callers are willing to do for us.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Justify biblically the notion that I’m going to hell for refusing to join myself to a church that hid and shifted around pedophile priests for decades.
LikeLike
Erik: Maybe read a book or watch a (gasp) black-and-white movie.
It’s more fun to waste hours every day on the internet Erik, look at Kenneth getting his jollies on here.
LikeLike
In telling us how orthodox Francis is (on paper) Catholics need to realize that as Protestants we have decades of experience in dealing with fellow Protestants who are orthodox “confessionally” while being unfaithful in practice. The PCUSA looked good on paper until 1967 or so. The CRC has not renounced the Three Forms of Unity. The wool may be pulled over their eyes because they have no choice, but don’t sell it to us. We can read Francis’ interviews.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
And that letter is quite underwhelming. So what?
LikeLike
Feeling pretty damned loved right now…so I got that going for me. Papa Frank will probably be like J.I. Packer — he’ll probably endorse about anyone’s book.
LikeLike
Just in case Kenneth missed the link to the Address given by Francis’ Chief of Staff
Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga SDB
Archbishop of Tegucigalpa
University of Dallas Ministry Conference
Irving Convention Center
25 October 2013
2. Vatican II
The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person.
The Vatican II Council officially acknowledged that things had changed, and captured the need for such a change in its Documents, which emphasized truths such as these:
1º) The Church is NOT the hierarchy, but the people of God. “The People of God” is, for the Council, the all-encompassing reality of the Church that goes back to the basic and the common stuff of our ecclesial condition; namely, our condition as believers. And that is a condition shared by us all. The hierarchy has no purpose in itself and for itself, but only in reference and subordination to the community. The function of the hierarchy is redefined in reference to Jesus as Suffering Servant, not as “Pantocrator” (lord and emperor of this world); only from the perspective of someone crucified by the powers of this world it is possible to found, and to explain, the authority of the Church. The hierarchy is a ministry (diakonia = service) that requires lowering ourselves to the condition of servants. To take that place (the place of weakness and poverty) is her own, her very own responsibility.
2º). Within the people, there is not a dual classification of Christians –laity and clergy, essentially different. The Church as a “society of unequals” disappears: “There is, therefore, in Christ and in the Church no inequality” (LG 12 32).
No ministry can be placed above this dignity common to all. Neither the clergy are “the men of God,” nor are the laity “the men of the world.” That is a false dichotomy. To speak correctly, we should not speak of clergy and laity, but instead of community and ministry. All the baptized are consecrated as a spiritual house and a holy priesthood (LG 10). Therefore, not only we clergymen are “priests,” but also, side by side with the ordained ministry, there is the common priesthood of the faithful. This change in the concept of priesthood is a fundamental one: “In Christ the priesthood is changed” (Hebrews 7: 12). Indeed, the first trait of the priesthood of Jesus is that “he had to be made like his brothers in every respect.”
The original priesthood of Jesus is the one that has to be continued in history. And it is the basis for understanding the presbyterium and, of course, common priesthood. Thus, the whole Church, the people of God, continues the priesthood of Jesus without losing their lay character, in the realm of the profane and the unclean, the “cast out;” a priesthood that does not focus themselves exclusively in the cult at the temple, but in the entire world, with a Samaritan praxis of justice and love. This priesthood belongs to the substantive plane; the other –the presbyterium —is a ministry and cannot be conceived apart from the common priesthood.
Fifty years have passed since these ideas were first proclaimed. But, even today, the greatest challenge is to examine the mission of the Church to conform it to the mission of Jesus. For that reason we speak in Latin America of a “Continental Mission” on par with a “pastoral conversion;” the documents of the Conference of Bishops in Aparecida in May of 2007 assert that, to make the right choice, and to become authentic, the Church needs only to return to Jesus.
Nowadays, the Church finds herself facing a demanding change, the most profound change in her history since primeval times. From being a European Church, more or less culturally uniform, and hence monocentric, the Church is on her way to become a universal Church, with multiple cultural roots and, in this sense, culturally polycentric. The Vatican II Council can be understood as the manifested expression of this step at the institutional level ( Cf. Concilium, “Unidad y pluralidad: problemas y perspectivas de la inculturación” [Unity and Plurality: Problems and Perspectives of Inculturation] No. 224, July 1989.p. 91). Thus, it is symbolic indeed that the last three Popes have not been Italian; the temptation of Europeanizing and Italianizing the Church has always been one tied to pretenses to power. Fortunately, things have changed.
There is no possible reform of the Church without a return to Jesus. The Church only has a future and can only consider herself great by humbly trying to follow Jesus. To discern what constitutes abuse or infidelity within the Church we have no other measure but the Gospel. Many of the traditions established in the Church could lead her to a veritable self-imprisonment. The truth will set us free, humility will give us wings and will open new horizons for us.
“The Church receives the mission to proclaim and to spread among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God” (LG 5). If the Church has a mission at all, it is to manifest the deeds of Jesus. The Church has never been her own goal. Salvation comes from Jesus, not from the Church. The Church is mediation; it is not an end in herself or of herself.
And there the Church, in humble company, helps making life intelligible and dignified, making it a community of equals, without castes or classes; without rich or poor; without impositions or anathemas.
For this task of mission and testimony, the Church should always come equipped with faith and a spirit of service to humanity. Too many times she gives the impression of having too much certitude and too little doubt, freedom, dissension or dialogue. No more excommunicating the world, then, or trying to solve the world’s problems by returning to authoritarianism, rigidity and moralism
The communion of the Church is vital for her to be able to acquire credibility in today’s society. But this is not mere democratization; it is working to achieve an authentic coexistence as brothers and equals. And this goal certainly cannot be attained through a hierarchic mindset, understanding the Ministerial Order as a superior presbyterium, privileged and exclusive, in the way that it appeared to be configured, with absolute power concentrated at the apex and delegated down to the rest of the tiers of the hierarchy.
6. Returning to a profoundly humane Church that will establish a new relationship with the world
The Church could not continue posing as a reality facing the world, as a parallel “perfect society,” which pursued her own autonomous course, strengthening her walls against the errors and the influence of the world. This antithesis of centuries needed to be overcome.
The council intended to apply the renovation within the Church herself, because the Church was not the Gospel, nor was she a perfect follower of the Gospel; she was inhabited by men and women, who, same as everywhere else, and according to their limited, sinful condition, had established within her many customs, laws and structures that did not respond to the teachings or the practice of Jesus.
Me: I left out all the references to liberation theology in full bloom. The problem of the ‘adopted children’ -Prot-Catholic, is they don’t know their mother and she isn’t who they hoped she would be. Welcome to the mother’s bosom of Vat II cradles, oh prot-catholics.
LikeLike
The dishonesty charge is an ad hominem. We don’t “spin” VII. Nothing we’ve said about VII is false — and if you think something we said about VII is false, feel free to show that it is false. (Assertions are a dime a dozen.) If there is something about VII that we haven’t said but that you think ought to be said, then please be specific. Hand-waving is unhelpful, and hand-waving accusations are uncharitable.
Vintage jesuitism.
Don’t ask me how we know.
Bryan never says anything that is falsifiable and never has. So stop asking him to provide examples.
KL doesn’t know what a jesuit is, so don’t tell him.
Jason doesn’t either, so no worries.
The roman lemmings will continue to conquer the innernet and all a misanthrope has to lose is his malice.
Just make sure when you bow down before that votive candle, you don’t singe your eyebrows. That’s all that’s left that will burn.
LikeLike
CD,
You can’t see the forest for the trees. Calvin’s Institutes was the work of a petty tyrant. Then what was going on in Munster?
LikeLike
The truth will set us free, humility will give us wings and will open new horizons for us.
Oh goodie. Does that mean that we get to flutter around as butterflies now?
Or has the innernet paradigm just changed and not the earth bound reality?
Thanks for that, sean.
Something tells me (implicit faith?) that the cardinal’s comments are like a bat out of the underworld for Bry.
LikeLike
Kenneth, 2k is short hand for two-kingdom theology. Its very name often elicits the sort of hyperventilating and rancor from neo-Calvinists as Roman Catholicism does from Bible church Fundamentalists.
LikeLike
Zrim,
ahhh I think I remember that from my days in the LCMS… That was of thinking caused some bad publicity for the Lutherans in Germany around the holocaust didn’t it? Or am I thinking of something else?
Erik,
You have me confused with someone else. I am definitely not the guy who defends the popes every word. I’m the token “trad” that makes other Catholics uncomfortable. If Pope Francis says or does something heretical I’ll be happy to agree with you that he is out of line. I have been skeptical of Pope Francis for some time now. The letter seems like no big deal of you aren’t aware of Bishop Marchellos work on the council. The school of Bolognia in France is peeing its pants right now. If pope Francis thinks Marchello is the best person in the world at interpreting V2 we are in good hands. It also made me wonder what “comment” Marchello had corrected from Pope Francis? Very significant. We will keep an eye on things.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
So you’re a sometime critic of the pope who makes other Catholics uncomfortable while at the same time telling Calvinists that they are going to hell if they don’t join the Roman Catholic Church. Why criticize the former while accepting the latter? Sounds like private (Protestant) judgment to me.
I’m also still waiting to hear how I’m going to hell for refusing to join myself to a church that hid and shifted around pedophile priests for decades.
LikeLike
Sean,
Does a Cardinals speech in Dallas Texas change dogma now? Lol I’ve got more heretical quotes in my arsenal from cardinal kasper than that little talk delivers. I’m sure these kind of antics are greatly troubling to neocatholics whose standards of orthodoxy are constantly in flux from pope to pope (which of course boils down to legal positivism) but it really doesn’t bother traditionalists in the slightest. Consider the Church in the time of Athanasius. There were validly ordained bishops all over the place that embraced heresy. There are validly ordained bishops today that embrace heresy. The Church, Tradition and scripture got us through the Arian heresy. The Church, Tradition and scripture will see us through the heresy of modernism. There have always been Judas priests from the time of the apostles…. No sweat over here
LikeLike
Kenneth, I’m not really concerned one way or the other, but as regards the direction of the church, I’m going to be chuckling to myself as he pastoral interprets and applies the church into conformity with the ‘spirit of Vat II’ all while signing off dogmatically as a ‘son of the church’. But, by all means, y’all be warmed and fed off the glow of ‘no dogma changed’.
LikeLike
Erik,
If Pope Francis comes out tomorrow and makes an excathedra pronouncement and condemns a point of view that I hold I will have to put my private judgment aside and bend the knee. The buck doesn’t stop with little old me after all. However, I don’t have to bend over backwards to agree with every little disciplinary action, speech, and interview that’s presented. The Church is in the midst of crises. What else is new? The traditionalist catholic is the best place to be on the map theologically. Place the current neocatholics, traditionalists and protestants in the time of the Arian heresy and who remains faithful? The protestants would be begging Athanasius to just give up, break off, and start up their own faithful micro denomination, the neocatholics would root for st Athanasius…. And then BOO his name once he was excommunicated…. Only to cheer once again once it came out Liberius only did so under duress, and only the trade, those faithful to all three legs of authority would remain.
LikeLike
Bryan, did you ever blog about the index of forbidden books, abolished in 1966? Do you think that was a good thing for the church to have in the first place? Or is it better for the church not to have it?
LikeLike
Erik,
btw… Why is it that Athanasius didn’t just start up his own little OPC? Why go through all the trouble of the exiles etc?
bumper sticker alert!!!!
. . let every one lend his aid, as feeling that he is himself a sufferer, lest shortly ecclesiastical Canons, and the faith of the Church be corrupted. . . . our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neither had our faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to us from the Lord through His disciples. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the Churches from old time until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been committed to us required at our hands; rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, and seeing them now seized upon by others.
(Encyclical Epistle to the Bishops Throughout the World, 1; NPNF2-4)
. . . we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church . . .
(Defence of the Nicene Definition, ch. VI, 27; NPNF2-4)
LikeLike
KENLOSES, you’re trying to evangelize me? So that’s what this is.
Regarding Vat2, just consider this: John Courtney Murray had to write under a pseudonym in the 1950s because the Vatican viewed him as guilty of Americanism (a heresy). And then at Vat 2 his understanding of religious freedom and church and state prevailed.
But nothing changed.
LikeLike
Hart: But nothing changed.
“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” –
The more things change, the more they stay the same..
LikeLike
Kenneth, right, and reputation is that the Holocaust was the fault of the 2k confessional Lutherans who distinguished between the temporal cares of the world and the eternal concerns of the church. And with all the hyperbolic analogies (by neo-Cals and Catholics alike), abortion will be the fault of the 2k confessional Reformed who do the same.
LikeLike
Zrim,
gotcha! Ok cool now I feel in the loop.
DG HART,
that’s exactly correct isn’t it! What I propose is that the reason why his Americanism was later accepted was not because of any change of doctrine… But instead because of a radical modernist invasion that had literally infiltrated the Church. Dietrich von Hildebrand aptly named this the Trojan Horse in the City of God and then described the effects in “The Devastated Vineyard”. Modernism invaded the Church just like Arianism did all those centuries ago…. We are only now beginning to recover.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I responded to your question about forbidding books in the discipline thread. Was it a good or bad thing? Like many things – probably a mixture of both given the context and time. If they were to do it again in this day and age, I wouldn’t be a fan.
Just as an aside on this whole CtC thing. First, you guys could just completely ignore them right? Or do they not have a right at all to express themselves (I think Darryl told Jason to “stop blogging about Protestantism”) and that’s why you keep writing articles about them?
If the issue is that they are being unfair to Protestantism by being disingenuous with how they view and defend the RCC, um is that not a symptom of anti-Catholic Protestant blogs all over the net? Where’s the uproar over all the anti-Catholic Protestant blogs that misrepresent Catholicism or are disingenuous in their defenses of Protestantism?
The reason Bryan and Jason could be doing what they do is not because they want to destroy Protestantism, but perhaps they want to elevate RCism from being viewed as apostate hellspawn. I don’t think they are writing primarily to ecumenical-minded Protestants who view Catholics as Christians (like Vat2 does with Protestants which seems to be the big source of the complaints against CtC here), but mainly to those who view RCism as apostate and would be evangelizing its members. A big complaint here seems to be “Hey Vat2 likes us Protestants. So get off your high horse Bryan!” Well if that same person in the next breath didn’t say “Hey you RCs are apostate – let me tell you about the gospel”, there might not be as much of an issue.
Btw if the complaint about Vat2 liking Protestants is indeed a driving factor of CtC criticism here, why doesn’t this blog stop writing against Lutherans and Keller and the like?
Please don’t hurt me.
LikeLike
Erik,Are you enjoying our own little munchkin? Looks like he glommed on to you. Have fun.
FTR Athanasius was never exed like Luther and the first generation prots. Then came Trent. Duh.
Cletus, that’s the problem when you’re a liar. Nobody believes you when you start telling the truth – if that. Trent and Vat2 are at loggerheads. Which one are you going to believe and how long will it be before another change/declaration/clarification warps the current umh, paradigm?
The fiend behind the crucifix – Romanist Lord Acton’s term for the pope in light of the Roman persecutions of the prots at the Reformation, particularly in France – might decide to change his tune – again – even as every change is ipso facto infallible and then where would we be?
Semper eadem indeed. Rome is always a liar, however much the lies might change from generation to generation.
LikeLike
Bob,
So CtC tries to show (amongst other things) how Trent and Vat2 are not at loggerheads. You do not agree with their argument in this regard. This therefore means Bryan and Jason are liars and “should stop blogging about Protestantism”?
Do you tell everyone who makes arguments you don’t agree with that they are liars and should stop talking about it?
LikeLike
KENLOSES, Athanasius wasn’t pope and he wasn’t Italian. Now you’re granting power to regular bishops in the East to speak for the top dog? (Do you guys ever stay on point — the supremacy of Rome — or is it simply cut-and-paste to suit your “evangelistic” purposes?)
LikeLike
KENLOSES, interesting to see that you think Murray was a modernist. Also interesting to see that you think nothing changed at Vatican 2. So you believe the index of forbidden books still exists? You believe that inquisitions should still be imposed? You don’t believe in freedom of conscience? Freedom of conscience is simply a matter of discipline? Oh wait, now we need to protect the freedom of conscience of all people even when they don’t believe in Christ?
Have you thought this through? Jack Chick is more coherent.
Are you really a closet SSPXer?
LikeLike
Cletus, I don’t like triumphalism of any kind. I don’t think that is so hard to see and it accounts for the Luther, Keller, and CtC posts.
Plus, CtC makes the claim of Roman Catholic superiority. But it is always a convenient and selective account of the facts. I don’t see anyone else taking them on. And since they are writing to people like me — a Reformed Christian — I think I have every right to respond.
I wish they would write for Methodists or for Tom Van Dyke.
But I am glad for their provocation because it has given me much more insight into Roman Catholic developments. And if you don’t think there is a great disparity between pre- and post-Vat 2 Roman Catholicism, I question your ability to understand history (which is what I do with Jason and the Callers who seem to have found some floating bubble that ranges between Athanasius, Pius X, and Noam Chomsky).
LikeLike
Darryl,
I don’t think we’ve had an article about the IFB. But in order to establish that we’re “at fault” for not having an article on the IFB, you would need to make an *argument* having that as its conclusion. Or show that the one-time existence of the IBF refutes some argument we have made, or contradicts some claim we have made. Assertions are easy, but establish nothing.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, for your countless articles and combox statements against Protestantism, why only one article (that I could find) on Vatican II, written by a guest author, at CtC?
I do not expect your response.
Regards,
Andrew
LikeLike
Bryan, the point — as if I’m being as evasive as you are — is that Roman Catholicism represents a lot more than simply the early church fathers (as if they are Roman) or papal supremacy. If you are going to call people to communion, you should let them know about warts and all. And while the antiquity (as you understand it) of your communion seems to work against the apparent recentness of Protestantism, it also means that Rome has many more warts to makeover.
But CtC doesn’t acknowledge the warts. It present a theory, a blue print, for a Roman Catholic church.
So the better comparison with Protestantism is our theory. But you always present Protestantism’s warts.
So I am providing a public service, trying to keep you honest.
LikeLike
“I don’t like triumphalism of any kind.”
Is it triumphalism when one says Protestantism is true and superior to RCism and RCism is apostate? If not, how is it triumphalism when one says RCism is true?
“CtC makes the claim of Roman Catholic superiority.”
Do you make the claim of Reformed superiority?
“But it is always a convenient and selective account of the facts.”
Can an atheist say your blog’s articles on say Scripture are a convenient and selective account of inerrancy and textual criticism and history? And that you should be expected to give a full-orbed defense of every non-inerrantist or Enns-type or Bart Ehrman-esque criticism? Or would you say to such a person that you are unashamedly writing from a Reformed Christian perspective and to view your writing in such a manner?
“And since they are writing to people like me — a Reformed Christian — I think I have every right to respond.”
Absolutely. Why that therefore means “they should stop blogging about Protestantism” escapes me.
“I wish they would write for Methodists”
Do Methodists not hold to Protestant distinctives CtC discusses?
“And if you don’t think there is a great disparity between pre- and post-Vat 2 Roman Catholicism, I question your ability to understand history”
I don’t know why acknowledging a change between pre and post Vat2 RCism somehow negates RCism.
LikeLike
William Tapley, the Third Eagle of the Apocalypse (and winner of Old Life’s Worst Christian Video of 2011) is also Roman Catholic and millions of times more influential than CtC. Seriously, he was covered on HuffPo.
LikeLike
DGHART,
when you evangelize a non believer (do y’all do that in the OPC? Or is it ridicule scorn and sarcasm for everyone?) wouldn’t you highlight and focus on the exciting and attractive parts of your faith and defend the more embarrassing aspects? Why don’t you write a million posts about how triumphant catholic answers is? Or why not the ministry of William Lane Craig or James White? They can both be pretty “one sided” too. Seems silly. Maybe because those ministries won’t waste their time with a no name historian whose blog and followers reads like a tea party rant. You should thank Bryan for taking the time to dialog with you and comment here…. He is the only reason why anyone outside of your micro denomination would ever take notice of you…. Which is of course the real reason why you cry and scream out for his attention. Without Bryan and Jason who would be left to talk to? Awkward…..
I think the SSPX is great and frankly don’t understand why they get so much flak. They accept 99% of the v2 documents and have serious problems with only a few texts…. Mean while, as Sean has so politely pointed out, there are Cardinals all over the place who are outright heretical and they enjoy “full communion” with Rome. That’s nuts. But anyways, no, I attend an FSSP parish (25 years! Woop woop!) and generally am dumbfounded by the SSPXs inability to reconcile texts that people like Sungenis, Fr Harrison, and ever Christopher Ferrara can deal with easily. Btw if you haven’t read Ferraras book “Liberty the God that Failed” you should pick it up. Good history that you might find challenging and exciting.
What I mean when I say that “nothing has changed” is that there is absolutely nothing stopping us from pretending the second Vatican council never happened. (which is exactly what traditionalists do… And is also exactly why our parishes, convents and seminaries will continue to boom while the rest of the Church looks so sickly). No new definitions were given. All we have that is truly new is a handful of pastoral programs (ecumenism, dialog, etc) and disciplines that have been historical failures. What’s so crazy is this grand “facade” that the council somehow changed everything. It has not. Not one single dogma of the church has been changed. So in one sense everything is the same…. And yet… Everything is different. If you think dogma.has been contradicted show me how and where. Present your case. I’m on this site because I want to hear what you have to say. But I want to read your actual ARGUMENTS and not just grandstanding and stone throwing at CtC.
Andrew,
Bryan wrote an article on religious liberty that was very well done.
LikeLike
Cletus, Old Life is about Reformed faith and its implications for practice. It is not about how Roman Catholics should become Reformed. It is about how Reformed can become more Reformed.
CTC is a bunch of former Reformed who converted to Rome out of the conviction that Reformed Protestantism is inferior. They never get around to noticing Rome’s defects. Nor do they offer any criteria for assessing inferiority. They simply assume Rome’s version of the truth. If they wanted to do that for other Roman Catholics, say, and sought to get them to become better Roman Catholics, that might make sense. But they recruit on the basis of a partial view of Rome, one that does not consider whether Roman Catholicism actually became modernist with Vat 2.
And that is why Vat 2 is serioius. If Pius X was right about modernism — and conservative Protestants would agree about the dangers of modernism or liberalism — then Jason, the Callers, and you have some ‘splaining to do. That you don’t even see the tension shows how far you are from the post-Vat 1 popes. And just in case you forgot, they were infallible. They raised the stakes, I didn’t.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, thank you Bryan.
And thank you, Kenloser, for paying someone of so little consequence a mite of your attention. I am unworthy.
In case you missed it, this is not an apologetics website. It’s op-ed, all the time.
And in case you missed it, lots of Roman Catholics can admit that Rome changed at Vat 2. Take Kenneth Woodward:
When you or Jason or the Callers can write like this, I will take you seriously. Until then, you’re presenting cartoons.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Old Life is about Reformed faith and its implications for practice. It is not about how Roman Catholics should become Reformed. It is about how Reformed can become more Reformed.”
So you (and Bob and John and McCulley, et al) never argue the superiority of Reformed theology over RC theology in comments? Is not one of the objectives of CtC for nominal Catholics to understand their faith better and become “more” Catholic? Sometimes this is done via articles that also discuss Protestant theology. Sometimes this is done with articles that do not deal with Protestantism at all.
“CTC is a bunch of former Reformed who converted to Rome out of the conviction that Reformed Protestantism is inferior.”
Any conversion I think would entail a person thinking their previous position was inferior. This is bad?
“They simply assume Rome’s version of the truth.”
Part of their whole paradigm schtick is that they aren’t simply assuming. You don’t agree with that schtick. Great. The above is like a non-Christian saying you just assume Scripture is true. No, you don’t. You present arguments about it. Atheists disagree with it. Doesn’t mean “you should stop blogging about Christianity”.
“And that is why Vat 2 is serioius. If Pius X was right about modernism — and conservative Protestants would agree about the dangers of modernism or liberalism — then Jason, the Callers, and you have some ‘splaining to do.”
Do you think Ratzinger and JP2 though pre and post Vat2 was incompatible in his rule of faith?
“That you don’t even see the tension shows how far you are from the post-Vat 1 popes. And just in case you forgot, they were infallible.”
Sure I see tension – I already said that above. There was tension in pre and post Vat2 changes. Pre and post Vat2 believed in ecclesial and papal infallibility. We get from that to “Jason and Bryan are liars and should stop blogging” and RCs should abandon their rule of faith how exactly?
LikeLike
Cletus, I have worked with Roman Catholics for almost ten years and I never started to object to Roman Catholicism until Jason and the Callers made it a matter of pride to have found the superior faith. The RC’s with whom I have worked may have thought Rome superior, but they didn’t mention it, knew that Roman Catholicism had right and left wings, and didn’t lord it over Protestants as if we were skeptics, rationalists, and clueless. Jason and the Callers asked for this. So far, I haven’t seen too many bloggers trying to correct their very one sided representation of Roman Catholicism. I’m actually grateful for that because it has made me aware of a rich historiography among Roman Catholic historians, scholars who are much more circumspect about Rome than Jason and the Callers. The reason is that these scholars know Rome’s past. All JATCs talk about is the theory of papal infallibility or the mechanism of resolving disputes, with a dip here and there into the pool of early church fathers.
If you don’t like the push back, tough. It’s a free country. You can spend your time reading and commenting somewhere else. But I am not going to let stand the claims by former Reformed Protestants either about their former communions or Rome when those claims are woefully inadequate or partial.
As for Vat 2, you still haven’t addressed modernism. I have no idea what JPII or BXVI thought of Pius X, but modernism and its dangers stands out as a huge gaping divide between pre- and post-Vat 2 Rome. And the wisdom of your communion picked the 1960s to go all in on modernity? Talk about infallibility.
LikeLike
“The RC’s with whom I have worked may have thought Rome superior, but they didn’t mention it, knew that Roman Catholicism had right and left wings, and didn’t lord it over Protestants as if we were skeptics, rationalists, and clueless.”
Cool maybe you can get your buds and commenters to not lord their theology over RCs as if RCs were clueless, check-brain-at-door, pelagian idolaters if your ideal is RCs not lording things over Protestants.
“If you don’t like the push back, tough. It’s a free country. You can spend your time reading and commenting somewhere else. But I am not going to let stand the claims by former Reformed Protestants either about their former communions or Rome when those claims are woefully inadequate or partial.”
I agree with all the above exactly and that is my point I made earlier. Engaging them and disputing their claims is great – I would never say you shouldn’t do that. Calling CtC and Jason dishonest and that they “should stop blogging about Protestantism” is different than simply disagreeing with them and arguing against them. Maybe Bryan and CtC have called you dishonest and that “you should stop blogging about anything concerning Catholicism” but I can’t recall any examples.
LikeLike
DGHART,
maybe I’m not explaining myself properly. I AGREE that the Church changed after V2! I AGREE that modernism crept in and spread luke wild fire. I am simply saying that change is not reflective of the dogmatic reality. Does that make sense? The “great facade” is that V2 changed everything…. When it actually didn’t change anything. The truth is that people took some ambiguous statements and ran with them using the “spirit of Vatican 2” as a type of master word to usher in whatever they wanted.
LikeLike
JATCs
They’ve earned their very own acronym. Awesome.
I also vote for JTBC.
Jeremy Tate’s Big Church.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
You tell us the church is in crisis and The Callers, excuse me, JATCs, tell us it’s all good. You guys need to huddle up.
Did you know they’ve written like one post on the priest sex abuse scandal?
LikeLike
Kenneth giving a pep talk to fellow Catholics on sticking with a church in crisis:
LikeLike
I want you to all remember that KENLOSES called this! 20 years from now (yes you will still remember this comment in 2033) those considered “radtrads” or “trads” will once again just be your run of the mill Catholic. All of the “liberal” and “conservative” labels will be tossed aside and the normative posture and health of the Church will be restored. As you can see by listening to the witness of “victim of the crises Sean” most RCs who are brought up in a liver Catholic education end up abandoning the faith. Liberal Christianity just doesn’t inspire… Its not challenging… It doesn’t stick. Luke warm just doesn’t get butts in the pews for very long. The truth always wins out… You’re hearing more and more about these alien “trade” everyday now. Watch for the trend to continue
LikeLike
*liberal*
*trads*
Erik,
I’m certain that Bryan and Jason know the Church is in crises. Even Cardinal Kasper knows this.They (along with the folks at Catholic Answers) prefer not to talk about it. Whatever. Its really not up to them to right the ship anyways (that falls on the bishops).
LikeLike
Cletus, if Rome were still the church of Pius XII, Jason and the Callers might have a point. Their critique of Protestantism would make perfect sense. It doesn’t after Rome changed and welcomed everyone else — Protestants, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims — to the party. Don’t you think all those condemnations and claims of superiority ring a little hollow when your own hierarchy doesn’t do that any more? At least Protestant modernists had the good sense simply to call us narrow and bigoted. But Jason and the Callers are saying things that the bishops and pope never say anymore. They embraced modernity. They are tolerant. So which Rome is it? Rome or CtC?
LikeLike
KENLOSES, if modernism is spreading throughout the church, then how exactly is an Roman Catholic in any position to condemn conservative Protestants who have condemned modernism and still keep it out of their ranks? That is especially ironic since you guys supposedly have the mechanism to keep such error out of the church and we don’t.
The more you explain, the deeper the hole.
LikeLike
Well just to give an example of a church that I know is interested in dialogue with the OPC the LDS church. They are going through something like the fundamentalist / modernist controversy today (their denomination is splitting into 3 theological camps that so far exist in tension) and they want to avoid a split. They have mentioned a desire to get advice from OPC leadership and other groups that ended up splitting as part of the fundamentalist / modernist controversy to get a better handle on what leadership could have done differently. LDS has 18m members globally.
LikeLike
@Cletus
Most Protestant apologetics are evidentiary not presuppositional So for example they many times do not just assume scripture is true rather they attempt to argue the truth of scripture. Lord, liar or lunatic makes no sense as an argument if one were just going to presuppose scripture. With CtC the posters often vacillate about whether they are assuming Catholicism and thus doing something akin to a presuppositional apologetic or argue their point and do something akin to an evidentiary apologetic. would agree there is some ignorance about what they are assuming. I would also agree there is a level or reformed training which has biased them towards finding presuppositionalism acceptable. But beyond that there is also intentional dishonesty where having been informed about the facts they are attempting to deliberately misrepresent them so as to cause people to convert under false pretenses. DgH is calling on them on that behavior and it is appropriate for them to be called on that.
For example in the evangelical community there are terrible, misleading and scientifically inaccurate anti-evolution arguments. Honest Protestants attack those arguments because they discredit Christianity. People who make those argument are and should be called out for making them.
LikeLike
Calling CtC and Jason dishonest and that they “should stop blogging about Protestantism” is different than simply disagreeing with them and arguing against them.
Cletus,
Long story short – and it’s not the first time we’ve been down this primrose path – your comment(s) fail the salient distinction.
JATC’s self professed claim to fame is that they are ex reformed and therefore are just so blessed in knowing all the many joints in the protestant harness for which Rome offers the perfect, infallible solution of fullness.
Yet one, the version/explanation/definition of the reformed faith they proffer is unrecognizable (such as SS being tantamount to an anabaptist version of the mormon burning of the bosom).
Further two, the Rome they propose as The alternative is also unrecognizable.
I mean, come on. You can harmonize the anthemas of Trent with Lumen Gentium without squaring a circle? Those of us who grew up in that communion, in our bones, if nothing else, know better.
You course may disagree, but implict faith is what it is – an approved infallible “apostolic” doctrine – and to argue as if the genius of Rome is not ritualistic sacramentalism, but logocentric as our king of the philosophers does, beggars belief.
Yet the CtC prattles on, secure in their paradigm against all question begging “unbelief”.
However having been suckled on that kool aid, we may be excused if our demurral lapses at times into full scale derision. It really does appear as ridiculous, try as one might, to suppress the obvious.
cheers
LikeLike
@Cletus
No Cletus they don’t. To pick an obvious CtC focus very heavily on sola scriptura and how sola scriptura must become solo scriptura and there is no solution…. Methodists believe in prima scriptura and create an entirely separate structure for dealing with role of tradition. The existence of which isn’t even mentioned on CtC (one exception in the comments I could find). The Pentecostal system which we might as little as one generation away from become the majority Christian system doesn’t get mentioned either which is IMHO a much more serious shortcoming.
CtC freely equivocates between using “Protestant” to mean: conservative presbyterian, conservative reformed, conservative members of formally Protestant denomination, Evangelicals, mainline Protestants, all non-baptists mainline or conservative….. That equivocation is crucial to the apologetic. They frequently have to make use of it to validate various theological claims.
LikeLike
DGHART,
if modernism is spreading throughout the church, then how exactly is an Roman Catholic in any position to condemn conservative Protestants who have condemned modernism and still keep it out of their ranks
because conservative Protestants have formally embraced the heresies of the reformation. The CC has not formally embraced modernism but has instead become infected with it like a virus.
That is especially ironic since you guys supposedly have the mechanism to keep such error out of the church and we don’t.
We have the cure my good man not the vaccine! As I have tried to explain the magesterium does not prevent heresy like a vaccine prevents the flu but cures the problem after the fact just like an antibiotic to step throat! Sometimes, the sickness doesn’t go away right away…. If you have strep it might take a few days… After Nicea the Arians didn’t just vanish instantly…. But inevitably antibiotics are the mechanism that will get the body up and running again. Similarly, the magesterium, although it doesn’t always prevent heresy, is the mechanism required to solve controversy definitively.
Does that distinction satisfy your qualm?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Don’t you think all those condemnations and claims of superiority ring a little hollow when your own hierarchy doesn’t do that any more?”
Hmm – what was that Dominus Iesus document all about again (from this century! zomg!)? Did it say all Protestant churches were just as hunky dory as Rome? I seem to recall quite a bit of uproar from Protestant circles over it.
“They are tolerant. So which Rome is it? Rome or CtC?”
Sure Rome is tolerant. A lot of Protestants aren’t tolerant of Rome. When Protestants bring armies to the battlefield and make all sorts of claims of apostasy/idolatry/blah blah, do you expect all Catholics to come at you guys with flowers to put in your guns before you blow them away? As I’ve said before, one of CtC’s goals is to make Catholics stronger in their faith and to not just sit there while anti-Catholic Protestants bash them over the head every minute.
CD-Host,
You have a good point about Pentecostalism. I presume conservative Reformed arguments are their main focus simply because that formed the bulk of anti-Catholic arguments over the past 500 years. Pentecostals don’t have people like Turretin and Whitaker and Horton and Sproul writing afaik.
LikeLike
Losers, Callers, and Lifers — I hate to go all 16th century but the real scandal of Rome is still that many/most of their people are mired in idolatry and superstition which packages and diminishes the divine into material, saleable, local packages of a hundred sorts. If Vat2 did something about syncretism, image worship, indulgences, and an ecclesiology that protects and even produces perversion and abuse, that would have been great. Instead we get U2 church for the Westerners and same old/same old for the rest of the world with a dash of liberation theology. Great. CtC is a geek squad of church fantasy buffs.
LikeLike
With CD-Host posting so frequently, shouldn’t we all suspend our disputes and gang up on the atheist?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Of course. I’ve never claimed otherwise.
That’s the very point in question. Does calling persons to communion, and specifically to ecumenical dialogue, require presenting in advance all one’s own “warts”? You assume that the answer to that question is yes. However, you have yet to provide an argument in support of that assumption. You just assume it.
Long history, and lots of people, yep, many sinful acts. But what remains to be shown is how that truth either falsifies one or more of our claims, or refutes any of our arguments.
As I have explained a number of times now, we present *arguments.* Arguments are not theories. If you think any of our arguments are bad arguments, feel free to refute them.
Except first you’d need to establish that we’re dishonest. What you’re doing is treating us like your real estate agent, who ought to tell you everything bad about a house before you buy it. But that’s because you are assuming that this sort of activity is the only form of legitimate intellectual activity possible, such that if persons present arguments, and don’t do the intellectual equivalent of what real estate agents do when showing you a house, they are dishonest. But the range of possible intellectual activities is broader than the equivalent of what real estate agents do. And that’s why your dishonesty claim is an unwarranted assumption.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Cletus, you play dumb as well as Bryan. The point isn’t that Protestants make claims about Rome’s apostasy. The point is that CTC presents Rome without problems — and that they especially skirt Vatican 2 which took a church that regularly condemned apostasy and schism (including Protestants) and now does not. It’s not that CtC is still opposed to Protestantism. It’s that CtC isn’t following orders to call off the opposition and that CtC fails to mention that the orders have changed.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, am I a good man or a heretic?
So you’re comparing Vat 2 to Nicea? In that case, the folks who are at odds with the church are the conservatives RC’s who keep talking about non-Roman Catholics and error the way Pius X did.
Deeper.
LikeLike
@Cletus —
Given that Pentecostals are converting millions of Catholics in Latin America every year they clearly are making anti-Catholic arguments and ones far more influential than those of Turretin, Whitaker, Horton and Sproul. Every convert from PCA / OPC to Catholicism is outnumbered by the number of converts per hour from Catholicism to Pentecostalism. The Reformed / Catholic debate is a side show of no serious consequence. Even among Americans broader the flows between Catholicism and Protestantism are primarily between liberal Protestantism and typical evangelical faiths not Reformed.
As for historically it still doesn’t hold up. Let’s give an example. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was 2nd only to the bible in terms of doctrine in early Anglicanism, above even the Book of Common Prayer. Foxe argues that Catholicism was a latter development and was never a godly form of the Christianity. That Christians should aim to escape from Catholic corruption and should return to their early roots. They name the Christian heretics as sources of a more primitive and pure form of Christianity that does not have the corruption. This is the doctrine of the fall of the church. That doctrine is what the overwhelming majority of Protestants believe today, that the church fell, it fell early and it fell hard. It is also rephrased a bit the majority position of scholars of early church history and has bee for several centuries. The majority of historical reformers were often more radical in their rejection of the church fathers than modern Baptists or Pentecostals.
The conservative Reformed don’t believe in the doctrine of the fall of church. So it is fine to ignore this doctrine in an argument meant to refute modern Reformed Christianity. It is not acceptable to ignore the doctrine of the fall of the church when discussing the position of the historical reformers or Protestants in general. It is not acceptable to claim access to accepted history when ignoring this doctrine. Censoring this argument when it arises naturally compounds the problem further. That starts to cross into building a deliberately dishonest picture for apologetic purposes.
LikeLike
Bryan, the elephant in your communion’s room is Vat 2. I have exchanged comments with you ad nauseum and you have always shrugged your shoulders and wondered what the issue is over Vat 2. One of the readers here said you have maybe one post at CtC about Vat 2. Since most historians in your own communion think that Vat 2 was the biggest change and most important even in Roman Catholic history, and since I myself can read lots of papal encyclicals and conciliar documents and recognize something very different between the Syllabus of Errors and Lumen Gentium, for instance, I think it is plausible to assert that you are being disingenuous. That lack of candor comes precisely from CtC’s frequent assertion, explicit and implicit, that Rome represents the oldest, true, and conservative version of Christianity. Vat 2 undermines that very claim. I get development of doctrine (even though it is exactly what modernists used to claim about historic Christianity), but you have to give a lot of qualifications after Vat 2 about Roman Catholic traditionalism and conservatism. (You act like the SSPXers don’t exist, or the nuns, or modern-day Quebec.)
If you want to do some kind of pomo apologetic, that might be interesting. But you continue to rely on neo-Thomism and logic as if Roman Catholicism is still locked into the categories of Leo XIII.
In other words, you don’t mention any of the history of your communion from the last 125 years. That is dishonest. And I am here to try to keep you honest.
LikeLike
Darryl,
All this presupposes the real estate agent genre.
In which paragraph(s) of which document do you think it does this?
Again, you’re still presupposing the real estate agent genre. As I pointed out in my previous comment, that’s not the only genre.
Well then, if anything we’ve said is false, it should be easy to show that.
Again, you’re still presupposing the real estate agent genre. And the implicit assumption, and insistence upon, there being only one genre is a kind of fundamentalism.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Wholesome, maybe, maybe not. This post is about JATC. We can wait for the thread on atheism, as for me, I view him as “mostly harmless,” as Douglas Adams might say, even if his personal outlook is objectionable and yes, is a problem. What I mean is, given the public nature of this forum, having people of opposing viewpoints share their views on the topic at hand (ie the blog topic posted) speaks to the health what’s going on here, and we should encourage outsiders like him to read and comment as they like. I think…
LikeLike
Bryan, just a word of advice, consider giving it a rest in this thread. By all means, continue on as you must. Just remember, when you do leave this thread, that we reformed are happy and doing well, and we wish the same for Catholics.
May the efforts to bring our traditions into a better understanding of one another be such that the outside world sees what we do and how we do it, as all honoring the name of our Lord Jesus, and may people be drawn to the Christian religion as these very important matters continued to be discussed in forums such as these. Take care.
LikeLike
CDH,
re: LDS desire to dialogue with OPC leadership, do you have a link? I don’t know how the “OPC leadership” is even defined. The General Authorities asking the advice of a committee of, say, Olinger, Strange, Fesko, Shishko, Garcia, Trueman, Hart, and Muether, would be a conversation falling somewhere between My Dinner With Andre and Meet the Parents/Fockers.
LikeLike
Once more and from the top. The dialectic or for those so inclined multiperspectivalism is; I can sign off on the dogma but then pastorally interpret and apply heirarchical and systematic changes as per Vat II, up to and including pew practice. Vat II is the game changer.
“According to St. Ignatius, great principles must be embodied in the circumstances of place, time and people. In his own way, John XXIII adopted this attitude with regard to the government of the church, when he repeated the motto, ‘See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.’ John XXIII saw all things, the maximum dimension, but he chose to correct a few, the minimum dimension. You can have large projects and implement them by means of a few of the smallest things.”
“The people itself constitutes a subject. And the church is the people of God on the journey through history, with joys and sorrows. Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks. When the dialogue among the people and the bishops and the pope goes down this road and is genuine, then it is assisted by the Holy Spirit. So this thinking with the church does not concern theologians only.”
“This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians; if you want to know how to love her, you have to ask the people. In turn, Mary loved Jesus with the heart of the people, as we read in the Magnificat. We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”
“Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture,” says the pope. “Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible. Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo. I think the decision of Pope Benedict [his decision of July 7, 2007, to allow a wider use of the Tridentine Mass] was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.”
“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.
The pope comments: “St. Vincent of Lerins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the deposit of faith, which grows and is strengthened with time. Here, human self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. Let us think of when slavery was accepted or the death penalty was allowed without any problem. So we grow in the understanding of the truth. Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment. Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.”
Me: Listen up prot-catholics, you tie this to the statements his chief of staff made at Dallas University a few weeks ago, speaking ON BEHALF of Francis, and further tie that into the conciliar and laity inclusion and curia reform he’s already started, including turning down the volume on the extraordinary form in FAVOR OF the Novus Ordo per Vat II. And this isn’t a hard read, it’s just a read you don’t want to hear.
LikeLike
Bryan,
Are Protestants saved or damned?
LikeLike
Mike —
No I don’t have a clean link, I’d have to dig for references specifically to the OPC. I know there have been several general conference speeches on this topic Holland and Anderson’s come to mind who are both now apostles (I’m not sure if Anderson was an apostle when he called for dialogue with Presbyterians). Apostles are the level above the global authorities and under the office of the presidency: if you think of Monson as the LDS president like Obama those are two members of the cabinet.
The more frequent references are from the faculty of Brigham Young (a hotspot for the neo-orthodox school which is one of the 3 main factions). I could post links to a ton of books on ecumenical conversation and the topic of how to address other factions (King Follett and traditionalists) come up all the times. People like Richard Mouw, Craig Bloomberg talking to Mormons like Robert Millet.
IMHO the real problem is on the Protestant side. There is a big Protestant debate about the theological appropriateness of normalizing the relationship with the LDS church. Most Presbyterian pastors don’t want to treat the LDS church as a normalized Christian denomination since, well they don’t consider them Christian. I’m not sure if DgH wants to go into a whole riff on Mormonism my point was just to address the rhetorical bluster that no one wants to talk to the OPC. The LDS church most certainly does.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Can you cite from Vat2 where it says Protestant theology is just as fine as RC theology? Can you cite from Dominus Iesus where Rome says Protestant churches are just as fine as RC churches? You seem to think that because Rome thinks Protestants can be saved and we should focus on what we have in common, that therefore means they think Protestantism is totally cool man and we should start inviting Protestant ministers to say mass.
LikeLike
DGHART,
KENLOSES, am I a good man or a heretic?
If you, being fully aware of the claims made by the Holy Roman Catholic Church, reject those claims and formally embrace the heretical teaching of the reformation there is no possibility of salvation for you. You have rejected the Church and thus rejected Christ. A protestant can only be saved in as much as one can escape from ones heretical communion through an implicit ignorance. I don’t believe you are invincibly ignorant and so with all love and gentleness must let say that if you do not recant and join the Church you will go to hell for all eternity.
you’re comparing Vat 2 to Nicea? In that case, the folks who are at odds with the church are the conservatives RC’s who keep talking about non-Roman Catholics and error the way Pius X did.
haha very nice Dr. Hart at least you are paying attention! The major difference, as you know, is that Nicea (like the vast majority of all ecumenical councils in history) delivered new dogmatic definitions in clear and precise language that was binding an authoritative on all Christians. The fathers of Vatican 2 literally bent over backwards to make sure that everyone knew this council was going to be a different kind of “pastoral” ecumenical council. No new definitions were given. Because of this, it was thought that the language used in the concilliar documents didn’t need to be as precise as a dogmatic pronouncement and thus the “compromise formulas” (cardinal kaspers term not mine) and ambiguities. After the documents were produced liberals took the ambiguous pastoral documents and ran a muck with them, somehow elevating V2 over all other councils and forever changing everything the Church had ever taught. Keep in mind this is not actually true! It is impossible that EVERYTHING has changed with not one new definition! Its a facade. The good news? These people are rapidly losing influence. Already half the daily mass attendees in France are traditionalists. Our children remain in the faith while the liberals children, much like Sean, become apostate. As I said… Another 10 to 20 years and this convo is alot different. Watch.
LikeLike
Andrew,
must you always be such a downer? DGHART begins and pleads for these guys yo engage with his insults (not arguments) and as soon as they show up you ask them to pack it in. Let Mr. Hart have his wish. He wants Bryan… Now Bryan is here exposing his poor logic. Sit back and watch for a while and see if you can learn something.
victim of the crises Sean,
you keep rooting for the liberals bud. You will keep on being disappointed as the trads continue to surge.
LikeLike
Andrew, not buying the understanding/play pattycake approach. I want Rome to reform or fall — that’s all.
Kenny, right back at ya — I believe your team is invincibly idolatrous and erroneous in the extreme. But I will not damn thee.
LikeLike
Kenneth, the entire extent of my rooting interest extends to watching the prot-catholics be disappointed over and over again by their mother. I left because, liberal or rad-trad, they couldn’t align themselves with the inscripturated apostolic tradition. Anything else is just left over sentimentality/nostalgia for my youth where there were no prot-catholics in sight and Notre Dame had a good football team. Fr. Morrell and I have exchanged a laugh over the chew toy the prot-catholics have made of the tradition and Fr. Pachence is excited to see the trads enrollment at seminary is starting to dwindle. Other than that, I’m here to help you and yours fill in the considerable gaps of what you don’t know.
LikeLike
As a side note, one of my best friends is a Rad-Trad who writes off Vatican 2 as the product of infiltration of the Vatican by Lutherans, Calvinists, Jews, and Jesuits.
That’s code for Modernism, by the by.
The difference is that my Rad-Trad friend at least acknowledges there’s something different between the Church prior to V2 and after. You’d better believe he sees that difference when the Church he used to go to for the Latin Mass now has a priest playing a ukelele.
Moreover, he may be acknowledging the change in tone between a Pope whose biggest enemy is Modernism and a Pope whose adversary is youth unemployment. I don’t know. I could be wrong.
Frankly, I don’t have a dog in this fight, besides that, as a Confessional Lutheran, we have similar groups to CTC.
I guess there’s consistency there, amongst the newly converted whose bosoms are still burning – they seem to think that part of being a Roman Catholic is making like a trio of monkeys who each have a unique sensory disorder.
LikeLike
Traditionalist seminary enrollment dwindling? Dream on.
LikeLike
And by “similar groups to CTC” I mean ex-Lutherans whose sole purpose is shepherd the “lost souls of Augsburg back home to Rome”.
LikeLike
Seth,
Interesting – what ex-Lutheran groups/sites would that be specifically? I’d be curious to check them out. Maybe Darryl can go after them too once he gets tired of Bryan and Jason. Do you think they are as dishonest and disingenuous as CtC?
LikeLike
Cletus, while I am not aware of any specific sites, there is a large contingent of similarly-minded ex-Lutherans on Facebook. I was referring more to a mindset than a official movement.
LikeLike
Kenneth, to disappear is my desire for myself in these forums, as well. What I perceive as your schizophrenia over Vat2 leaves me with so many questions about RCism, I can only say these forums increase my thankfulness for where God has placed me. So yes, as you request, I will no longer rain on everyone’s parade here. Take care.
Chortles, consider me a kellerite with a hangover, thus, my “winsomeness.” As an outsider of all things PCA, there was a time years ago I was helped along by Dr. Keller’s writings. Not sure what the cure is for this disease, just don’t shoot the messenger (insert emoticon).
Adios.
LikeLike
Bryan, what you take as presupposition could simply be talking point. But your mode is to go to logic, proof, certitude. Not nice doing business with you.
I am still curious why you fail to feature an event in church history that seriously challenges many of your claims about the hierarchy and the magisterium. If you think Vat 2 is so little of a concern to potential converts, why don’t you cite a few Roman Catholic historians who view it that way? It sure seems to be that if Vat 2 is such a minor ripple, you could easily produce references to the literature. But that would be difficult since even Benedict himself felt obligated to address the question of reform or discontinuity involved in Vat 2.
This is especially important for conservative Protestants who are adverse to the equivocations of Protestant liberalism. Development of doctrine as a way to explain Vat 2 only shows the extraordinary lengths to which apologists have to go to try to put Vat 2’s genie back in the bottle.
Look, if you want to say you are on a journey, Rome is on a journey, the Lord isn’t finished with either you or the magisterium yet, fine, though I don’t think that’s going to be much of an apologetic except maybe with Oprah. But if you’re going to talk about authority, truth, logic, and premises, you still have lots of ‘splaining to do.
LikeLike
CvD, I’ll go you one better, Nostra Aetate
LikeLike
Andrew — read Calvin, DG’s book on Machen, and watch Wallander. That might cure your Redeemerism. And buy looser pants. Maybe others will offer you suggestions. Admitting your problem is the first step…
LikeLike
Chortles, done, done, and done. Take care.
LikeLike
KENLOSES, but you’re not paying attention. You didn’t even comment on Kenneth Woodward’s memories of what changed.
Nor are you doing justice to those vigorous claims about the magisterium protecting the church from error. Why so much ambiguity if the Holy Spirit was at work? Why so fuzzy if the magisterium is supposed to prevent fuzziness?
LikeLike
“and don’t do the intellectual equivalent of what real estate agents do when showing you a house, they are dishonest”
This mindset described by Bryan is what creates the environment that allows someone like Neuhaus to assert “moral certainty” in the face of overwhelming evidence of misdeeds by a beloved bishop. It is the mindset that allows cardinals to coverup child rapists and bishops to send predators to run orphanages in 3rd world countries. I mean everything they said about Fr. Urrutgoity was true, right? Were they really under any obligation to reveal all his warts? I mean why tie one’s self to the real estate genre?
Is it any wonder few people take philosophy seriously? Philosophy has a terrible record of establishing truth on issues that eventually become amenable to empirical investigation, but it remains a fly trap for intellectual posers. In the words of Paulie, it is not even false.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Cool so you can’t cite from Vat2 or Dominus Iesus where Rome teaches Protestant theology and churches are just as good as RC theology and churches. You can cite Vat2 saying “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions” which I already stated beforehand.
Btw, if the CtC project and Jason are jokes and out-of-step with reality, why did Jason speak with Scott Hahn’s blessing at the Defending the Faith conference at Franciscan University (along with Madrid, Ray, and others). Did Hahn and Franciscan University not get the memo from Rome to cool it and just chill man? Is Hahn and Franciscan U disingenuous and dishonest and a joke in the RC world?
Did Fr Mitch Pacwa not get the memo when he debated Martin in the 80s and White in the 90s/00s?
Did Catholic Answers or Relevant Radio (which has priests supporting it) not get the memo?
Are they all disingenous and out-of-step with reality?
You asked Bryan “It sure seems to be that if Vat 2 is such a minor ripple, you could easily produce references to the literature”. Why does thinking there was development and continuity with pre and post Vat2 church must therefore mean there had to “a minor ripple”? Did pre and post Vat1 RCs think Vat1 was just a “minor ripple” (was development of doctrine being used there to put the post Vat1 genie in the bottle back in at that point as well)? Did pre and post Trent RCs think Trent was just a “minor ripple”? Every council has a big ripple, but that doesn’t necessitate rupture.
LikeLike
DGHART,
I didn’t read anything remarkable in Mr. Woodwards article. I completely acknowledged and admit that the Church was much healthier before the second Vatican council. Any fool(even I) can see that. Its heart breaking for me to see the church militant in such a shabby and pathetic state. Won’t you please cross the Tiber and help us get things back on track 😉 I didn’t notice any particular “change” in Kenneths article with significant theological significance… Did you?
The Holy Spirit does not call ecumenical councils. Council Fathers do not transform into divine fortune tellers. You must be careful to differentiate between divine inspiration and the charism of infallibility. Infallibility doesn’t mean you always speak with perspicuity (although the Church has an excellent track record of doing so) but insists that when the Church defines dogma or repeats that which has always been taught from the earliest times she is protected from error. Again, the advantage isn’t that we PREVENT fuzzyness but that we have the mechanisms necessary to clear a fuzzy head. Also lets keep in mind here that there really isn’t very much fuzzyness at all. Has the number of sacraments changed? Are we confused on baptismal regeneration? Is the Eucharist no longer a sacrifice? Has Church teaching on how one is “saved” changed? There is, ultimately, only a few peripheral issues that need clarification. When the teacher decides to teach the students are ready to listen. For you guys who can even know who the teacher is supposed to be?!? The protestant ship as been lost at sea for hundreds of years and progressively gets more and more bizaar as the years go by
LikeLike
Sbd,
your thoughts on philosophy are delusional
LikeLike
Cletus, if any conservative Protestant read what Vat 2 wrote about Hindus, Jews, and Muslims without also saying that such persons need to be saved, they would think Rome was liberal. So again, since Bryan is targeting conservative Protestants, he still needs to be more candid about what has happened in Rome. Now, it could be that Bryan is ignorant of these changes. I don’t think he reads that widely in history and I don’t think he has a particularly historical outlook. Or he could be deceitful.
Either way, you haven’t exactly gotten right with Vat 2. Like Bryan, you evade. Ripple not rupture. Plenty of folks in the pews of the PCUSA during the 1920s were saying the same thing. At least the SSPXers have some nerve.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Again, we’re not “doing business.” We’re making arguments. And following “talking points” is not part of presenting and evaluating argumentation. So it bears repeating that we’re working in a different genre than you are.
I never claimed that that VII is of so little concern to potential converts. If someone has a question about it, he or she is free to ask it.
I never claimed that VII is a minor ripple.
I agree.
That’s a claim that would need to be substantiated. You would need to show that VII changes are neither permissible changes in discipline nor authentic developments.
None of us has claimed that we’ve said all there is to say about anything. But that doesn’t falsify any claim we have made, or refute any argument we have presented.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Darryl,
Still waiting on that citation.
“Either way, you haven’t exactly gotten right with Vat 2. Like Bryan, you evade. Ripple not rupture.
Plenty of folks in the pews of the PCUSA during the 1920s were saying the same thing. At least the SSPXers have some nerve.”
At least Dollinger and The Old Catholics had some nerve.
At least the Catholics who left after Trent had some nerve.
At least the post-Conciliar Arians had some nerve.
If you want Rome to remain a ship-in-the-bottle, ain’t gonna happen and has never happened. If you want Rome to *not* say “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation … the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ” (also from Vat2 btw), not gonna happen. If you want Rome to say Protestant theology and churches are just as good as RC theology and churches, not gonna happen. If you want Rome to throw Hahn, Franciscan U, Catholic Answers, Relevant Radio, Mitch Pacwa under the bus and tell them to get with program, not gonna happen.
If you want to continue to call Bryan, CtC, and Jason dishonest and liars despite the above, well that may still happen.
LikeLike
What normative claims about nature from philosophical methods have survived empirical scrutiny? The RC convert Bas van Fraassen is valuable reading on this point. His book “the empirical stance” based on his Terry lectures is a good place to start. But I suppose you’ve read Aristotle, Aquinas, Chestrson, and Martiain so you know all that needs to be known about metaphysics.
P.S. I’m stuck in an airport on a smartphonr. Please forgive my typos…
LikeLike
Quick guide for those new to Old Life:
If Bryan Cross writes a full paragraph, read it. It might be worthwhile.
If Bryan Cross writes something that is chopped up, ignore it. He’s playing annoying games.
You’ll get 1 of the former for every 10 of the latter, unfortunately.
LikeLike
CvD,
hello, I know we are on the same team here and so shouldn’t cross talk…. But comparing the SSPX to the Old Catholics, Arians and reformers is not accurate. The SSPX is Catholic. They perform a valid mass all over the world. Not having canonical status is light years away from Dollinger and the Arians. The sspx has denied no dogma of the Church and recognizes V2 as a valid ecumenical council.
Cardinal Castrillón answered this statement of Fr. Newmans’s regarding Catholic faithful in his February 8, 2007 interview, in the German Die Tagespost.
“The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”
LikeLike
Sbd,
I have not only read Aquinas but also have been blessed to understand him. You will have to excuse me if I take his work over BvFs. The normative claim of material and efficient causation is still held to. Formal and final causes have never been disproven but are metaphysical in nature and so can not be “observed”. The law of non contradiction is still valuable last I checked. Perhaps the premises of the ancients were false regarding nature but that doesn’t mean their philosophical principles are.
I am always typing on my phone so I understand your pain
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Thanks for the correction. Productive cross-talk is always good!
LikeLike
Bryan, “That’s a claim that would need to be substantiated.”
I never said it wouldn’t need to be substantiated.
“. . . that doesn’t falsify any claim we have made, or refute any argument we have presented.”
I agree.
LikeLike
Cletus, don’t hold your breath. I gave you Nostra Aetate and you flew like a butterfly.
I don’t want Rome in a bottle. But that’s what JATC pretend to offer. You know. All that early church father business.
LikeLike
Darryl,
And I gave you a citation from within Nostra Aetate you cited, a citation from LG, and Dominus Iesus. That’s stinging like a bee. Your counter is?
If JATC (I’m digging it by the way) are pretending to offer Rome in a bottle, so is Hahn, Franciscan U, Catholic Answers (and all its priests/bishops), Relevant Radio (and all its priests/bishops), and Mitch Pacwa. But yeah JATC are just some fringe dishonest conservatives totally out-of-step with mainstream RCism. Do facts matter or just narratives?
LikeLike
“Except first you’d need to establish that we’re dishonest. What you’re doing is treating us like your real estate agent, who ought to tell you everything bad about a house before you buy it. ”
This man in his peevishness is fondly comparing himself to a real estate huckster?
The clown show never fails to make me LOL on here.
LikeLike
Erik, good advice on how to read (or not read) BC — surprisingly perceptive of you.
LikeLike
Cletus, so, you reconcile the documents. Oh, that’s right. Not your charism.
If you think you’re winning, you better have some more cross-talk with KENLOSES. He sees modernism everywhere.
Who am I supposed to believe?
(Clete, since you live in San Antonio, you should hang out with Sean.)
LikeLike
DGHART,
victim of the crises Sean lives in SA? I’m a Houstonian maybe we can have a big slumber party! Btw I don’t see modernism in the documents of V2. I see ambiguous statements that are reconcilable with Tradition and previous statements from the magesterium. No more cross talk necessary when it comes to dogma and infallibility. The only thing I could imagine we might disagree on are matters of discipline, ecumenism, etc but that’s no big thing
LikeLike
KENLOSES, read Pius X on modernism and see if equivocation, tolerance, and doctrinal development don’t fit in his very wide berth for doctrinal error.
But I guess he erred.
Sometimes I think you guys are really more Protestant than we are. You have this idea of Roman Catholic truth to which popes and councils sometimes conform, and sometimes depart. Haven’t you heard, you’re supposed to be in submission to your bishop?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Is that the same Pius X who after Pascendi wrote to a bishop in Ireland supporting and recommending Newman’s works including Development of Doctrine and who criticized modernists for using his work on development to support “something of their own invention”?
LikeLike
DGHART,
equivocation and religious tolerance were definitely not on his list of things we should do. However, I would maintain, through both faith and reason, that there is ultimately no contradiction on a matter of dogma in the V2 documents. It is a complicated issue and I will grant that whole heartedly. The second Vatican council and its aftermath are embarrassing for Roman Catholics…. Just as the crusades and the inquisition are embarrassing. I can imagine it was pretty embarrassing for the earliest Catholics that one of the 12 betrayed Christ and that Peter denied Jesus 3 times…. So much for an impeccable Church. If a protestant eyeing conversion is looking for perfection in discipline V2 might be a deal breaker…. If said person is looking for the Church that was founded by Christ personally, is authoritative, and is divinely protected from error….. We still have quite a bit to offer
LikeLike
“Productive cross-talk is always good!”
How on earth would you even know?
Oh, that was a small “c.” Never mind.
LikeLike
Kenneth, you don’t see modernism in the Vat II documents? You prot-Catholics may be beyond helping. You don’t have to agree with the pastoral interpretations, big dissident, but do read the history of the council. Start with Duffy and Komonchak, John O’Malley and Charles Curran. Yeesh, stop making it up like I’m not reading.
LikeLike
Pope John XXIII, opening address of Vat II.
“Illuminated by the light of this Council, the Church — we confidently trust — will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. In fact, by bringing herself up to date where required, and by the wise organization of mutual co-operation, the Church will make men, families, and peoples really turn their minds to heavenly things”
“In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.
We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.
In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.”
Me; So, I don’t know anything about anything-Kenneth, thinks there’s no modernism in Vat II. The extraordinary Charism of the Pope disagreed.
LikeLike
Victim of the Crises Sean,
I am aware of the history Sean. I know that the Rhine flows into the Tiber. However, Despite the best efforts of Satan, Christs promise stands and the gates of hell shall not prevail. If you think otherwise cite the page and line and lets have a look. Otherwise, feel free to hide behind your keyboard per usual. I have been hanging around you guys for a while now and I’ve yet to see any substance. Where are all these staunch reformers? After reading Whitaker and Goode I had high expectations… What a let down.
LikeLike
Kenneth on a journey, who’s hiding? I’m a few hours south when you’re feeling froggy or drunk enough.
But back in reality, what Vat II hasn’t already done, i’ll sit back in my Protestant easy chair and provide play by play and color commentary to try and help you keep up.
First lesson; the novus ordo is normative per Vat II.
LikeLike
“The doctrine persists, the understanding of its parameters and essence develops.”
IOW the more things change, the more the propaganda remains the same.
Bryan refuses to engage with anything less than a formal syllogistic argument even as he refuses to proffer the same. Can you say hypocrite? How about double standard? Gotta love that infallible charism that due to proximity to the magisterium renders one immutable, impeccable, infallible, invisible.
Cletus can’t understand the difference between ex reformed turned romanists pontificating on all things reformed and romanist as opposed to nonexistent ex reformed turned lutherans doing nothing at all.
KL assumes, but cannot prove, that Christ’s promise to his church necessarily means the Roman church.
And somebody else can’t distinguish between a used car salesman, flim flam man and a real estate salesman.
All in a day’s work and never a dull moment, but my charism says watch Francis. After reaching out to the laity, Vat 3 will be convened and the Reformation will be acknowledged as the true church in the fullness of DevelopDoct and there will be purple birettas that philosphers lust after passed out all around. To protestants first. That’s got to hurt.
And before we forget. Fundamentalism = Rome before Vat2, SSPX after.
The CtC? = Fundamentally confused (charitable
ananthemaassessment) Liars (uncharitableananthemaassessment).LikeLike
Clete, seriously. A letter is the same as an encyclical. You keep telling us we need to make distinctions. Yet you can pull out whatever utterance suits your argument. Whack a mole!
LikeLike
KENLOSES, and if a sinner wants to be saved by Christ and not subject to the equivocations of infallible bishops (of Rome, only, of course), the Protestants have much more to offer.
LikeLike
m&m, cross-talk is the new pillow talk.
LikeLike
Darryl,
2 points. You had said Pius X did not think doctrinal development fit into his condemnation of modernism. His praise of Newman after the condemnation refutes that. So that’s just from ascertaining what a person actually believed and allowing them to interpret themselves.
Secondly, no a letter is not the same as an encyclical. So if you had said “the Church does not think development reconciles with modernism” I would not have offered the letter except only to show that they are theoretically harmonious (the letter does it). So yes, quite right, even if he had condemned Newman in the letter, that would not touch the condemnation of modernism as a doctrine. But the fact that he did not, shows that they are able to be reconciled – he’s a witness to the reconciliation of the two.
I’m sure you have plenty of shells in your arsenal to show discontinuity between modernism and development. This ain’t one of them.
LikeLike
CvD
Modernism was condemned as doctrine: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html
LikeLike
CD-H,
Did you not just read what I wrote above? Modernism is condemned, yes. Development of doctrine is not.
LikeLike
CD-H,
I see in my response to Darryl I was unclear.
“I’m sure you have plenty of shells in your arsenal to show discontinuity between modernism and development.”
should be:
“I’m sure you have plenty of shells in your arsenal to show discontinuity between *condemnation of* modernism and development”
my bad.
LikeLike
Bryan – All this presupposes the real estate agent genre.
Erik – It’s a shame Bryan’s not a realtor. That flat cap look could earn him some bucks.
LikeLike