In But Not of America (part four)

Published on by D. G. Hart

During the Americanist controversy for Roman Catholics — Protestants had their own version with the Second Pretty Good Awakening — the question was how to bring U.S. bishops who promoted American patriotism and nationalism in ways the Vatican regarded as harmful into line with the papacy. What is remarkable about recent post-Vatican II history in the U.S. is that this question has shifted from the bishops to the laity (though only a few are raising the question). Jason and the Callers may want us to think that papal authority is just what overly opinionated Protestants ordered, but they don’t notice or try to account how their theory squares with the seemingly infinite variety of lay Roman Catholics who speak for the church in ways that used to be well above their pay, pray, and obey grade. In other words, the problem isn’t renegade bishops. It is laity who think they actually understand and can explain what a hierarchical church confesses, worships, and teaches.

Michael Sean Winters reminded me of this when he posted an excerpt from William F. Buckley, Jr.’s reaction to John Paul II’s encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis.

This Tweedledum-Tweedledee view of the crystallized division between the visions of Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot over against those of Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Churchill makes Christian blood boil with the kind of indignation that fueled the spirit of the Christian martyrs who have died by the millions since 1917 imploring God to relieve mankind of the curse of what at the hands of the Pope in this encyclical becomes merely one of ‘two systems’ grown ‘suspicious and fearful’ of the other’s domination. Obviously, in the 102 pages one can find the ritual Christian affirmations. But they are swamped by a theological version of the kind of historical revisionism generally associated with modern nihilists. One prays that the Holy Father will move quickly to correct an encyclical heart-tearingly misbegotten.

95 thoughts on “In But Not of America (part four)”

  1. It is laity who think they actually understand and can explain what a hierarchical church confesses, worships, and teaches.

    Algore didn’t do us any favors, either. Where does he get off, going and inventing the internet like that? I blame him for the lay aggressive evangelism I see lately..

    A study committee may be just what the doctor ordered, to update our docs. Do I hear a second?

    Like

  3. In case I am not being clear, here:

    1 Peter 3:15. The circumstance, similar to that in Acts 8:4, is persecution. Peter’s word is a call to readiness; i.e., to be prepared to respond to those who question the saints about their hope. He says nothing about Christians asking questions concerning an unbeliever’s lack of hope. The call to readiness is indeed an imperative to understand the faith, but it is not a call to aggressive lay evangelism. The context demonstrates that Peter has in mind the peaceful, devout life which Christians are to live before the world. The aggressive parties in this passage are the non-Christians; they are the ones who are creating the situation and precipitating the conversation. The saints respond to the interrogations of those who oppress them or marvel at them.

    Peace.

    Like

  4. Darryl,

    but they don’t notice or try to account how their theory squares with the seemingly infinite variety of lay Roman Catholics who speak for the church in ways that used to be well above their pay, pray, and obey grade.

    First you would need to show how this phenomenon contradicts our “theory.” Asserting that there is a contradiction (where one thing does not “square” with another) does not show that there is a contradiction. Accusing someone of not fixing a fictional problem might be amusing or rhetorically expedient, but it isn’t charitable or truth-loving. First you have to establish that there is a contradiction, before accusing persons of not addressing the contradiction.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  5. If I recall correctly, Buckley also had a Priest come and say the Latin Mass for him and his servants each Saturday afternoon on the grounds of his residence in Connecticut. He wasn’t one to mix with the Hoi polloi in the Post-Vatican II run-of-the-mill Catholic parish.

    His faith did have an impact on his choices in his last days, however. In “Losing Mum & Pup” his son Christopher recalls how his dad said he would have ended his life during to cut short his suffering with Emphysema if it weren’t for the church’s teaching on suicide. It saddens me to think of such a vibrant man reaching those levels of despair. I suppose something similar may await us all at some point.

    Like

  7. From Machen, a shout to accountants? Just for fun.

    Indeed in count-
    less cases it affords a much higher degree of certitude.
    Perhaps the reader may pardon an illustration from or-
    dinary life. I have an account at one of the Princeton
    banks. It is not so large an account as I should like,
    but it is there. Every month the bank sends me a
    report as to my balance. I also obtain information as
    to the same thing by the calculation which I make on
    the stubs of my check book. The information which
    I obtain by my own calculation is obtained by “proof”
    in the Tennysonian sense (or the sense which rightly
    or wrongly we have attributed to Tennyson). The
    information which I obtain from the bank, on the
    other hand, is obtained by faith it depends upon my
    confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the employees
    of the bank. I have not the slightest notion how the
    banks attain such a marvellous degree of accuracy.
    One of the first teachers of mathematics that I ever had
    told me, I think, something to the effect that the offi-
    cials of a bank sometimes spend the entire night search-
    ing the books for one cent that is unaccounted for.
    Recently I think I read in the Saturday Evening Post or
    some such journal, to my great disappointment, that if
    they are only one cent off, they go to bed. It was a
    youthful idol shattered! At any rate I do not know
    how they do it; I have not at all followed the steps of
    their calculation of my balance: yet I take the result

    FAITH AND HOPE 237

    with perfect confidence. It is a, pure matter of faith.
    Now not infrequently at the end of a month differences
    of opinion emerge, I am sorry to say, between the bank
    and myself as to the amount of my balance; “faith”
    in the bank’s report is pitted against “proof” as based
    on my own calculations. And the curious thing is
    that faith is much stronger, much more scientific, than
    proof. I used to think that my calculation might be
    right and the bank’s report wrong, but now I trust the
    bank every time. It is true, I have the desire to make
    the two means of obtaining knowledge converge; I
    have the intellectual desire of financially unifying my
    world. But I do so not by correcting the bank’s report
    but by correcting my own calculation. I correct “proof”
    because I have obtained better information by “faith.”

    That case, simple as it is, illustrates, I think, a great
    principle which goes to the vitals of religion. It is not
    true that convictions based on the word of others must
    necessarily be less firm and less scientific than convictions
    based on one’s own calculation and observation. One’s
    own calculation and observation may turn out to be
    wrong as well as one’s confidence in the word of another
    person.

    Back to the topic at hand. Let’s get ready to rumble..

    Like

  8. The Crossman must get off the computer and just laugh about messing with us. All the warmth of Sherlock but with no information. I hope he’s messing with us to tell you the truth.

    Like

  9. Bryan seems a bit obsessed with what is going on in the Presbyterian & Reformed world. With all the glories of Rome available to him, one would think he would shake the dust off of his feet and move on:

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/clark-frame-and-the-analogy-of-painting-a-magisterial-target-around-ones-interpretive-arrow/

    My comment in case it doesn’t make it out of purgatory:

    You also need to consider the possibility that:

    (1) Frame has an opinion

    (2) Clark has an opinion

    (3) The Pope has an opinion

    and none of them is authoritative.

    You confuse the notions of “it would be helpful to have a final authority” with “we must have a final authority” and “I’ve found a final authority!”

    One might conclude that they’ve found a final authority by the presence of good fruit, maybe even predominately or exclusively good fruit. After all, Jesus said, “By your fruit you may know them.”

    When people look at history and the Roman Catholic Church the fruit is decidedly mixed, up to and including the article I read in the paper today about the opening of the priest sexual abuse files in Chicago.

    I need consistent evidence, not just a leap of faith, to identify what you think you’ve identified.

    The problem is you guys have taken a leap of faith and then painted a target of evidence around it to support your leap.

    Like

  10. As finite creatures it seems logical to me that we will have limitations as far as our knowledge of divine things goes.

    In light of this, it seems logical to seek a theological system that is circumspect, biblical, and focused on the authority and sovereignty of the one being who is infinite, God.

    Reformed theology seems to meet all of these criteria.

    What I would not do is go in search of a purportedly infallible human authority figure to resolve my need to know things authoritatively. From the earliest days of the church there was uncertainty — look at Peter and Paul disagreeing.

    I would especially not settle on a supposed infallible human authority who has himself often done evil and led the church in unbiblical practices and worship for centuries.

    Jesus didn’t leave us an infallible authority figure to answer all our questions, but he has given us enough with his Word and with other people who are seeking after him according to His Word.

    Like

  11. How do the Callers manage everyday tasks like filing their income tax return, asking a woman to marry them, buying a car, or taking a job? If they choose to do things one way there are so many other potential options that they haven’t chosen. How do they know which choice is right?

    They can’t call the Pope and ask him. He won’t take their call. How do they make these decisions in light of not having an infallible human authority to help them?

    How could God abandon them without infallible guidance?

    Like

  12. Erik,

    “(1) Frame has an opinion
    (2) Clark has an opinion
    (3) The Pope has an opinion
    and none of them is authoritative.”

    Well one of the 3 actually claims his opinion is more than opinion. The other 2 don’t.

    “You confuse the notions of “it would be helpful to have a final authority” with “we must have a final authority””

    So Scripture doesn’t need to be our final authority?

    “I need consistent evidence, not just a leap of faith, to identify what you think you’ve identified.”

    Have you applied that rationale to to every book and passage in what you’ve identified as Scripture in your canon? Sounds like you don’t like faith. So can you put down your consistent evidence and prove it out like a geometric proof?

    “The problem is you guys have taken a leap of faith and then painted a target of evidence around it to support your leap.”

    No we just recognized that there were actual targets already on the board, rather than just wasting time and making up our own to paint. It’s faith working with reason, not fideism. That’s you guys.

    Like

  13. Clete,

    You might also have fallen for a scam.

    Obviously there is a huge market for “certainty”. A church that offered “certainty” is something people would give a lot of time and money for.

    Add to this that church saying that people have no choice if they don’t want to go to hell and you’ve got a great product.

    Almost as good as cigarettes.

    Like

  14. Erik, re Alexander, VI: It’s the “Alias Smith and Jones” defense: for all the trains and banks that he robbed, he never taught anyone.

    It’s precisely that void of never having taught anything that keeps him as a placeholder in the unbroken succession. The “infallible deposit” didn’t budge an inch under that guy. (Although, many concubines “under that guy” gave him many bastard children.

    This is God’s Glorious Plan. The Holy God is more interested in keeping Alexander VI in the succession and keeping “unity”, than putting Alexander in place and thus messing up his gloriously interlocking Thomistic system.

    Like

  15. The problem has been maintaining the monopoly since governments stopped enforcing it.

    People in Latin America, when given a choice, are readily choosing Pentacostalism over Rome. They aren’t buying the product anymore when no one is making them.

    Like

  16. Erik,

    Oh so Penecostalists are just super dandy? Enemy of my enemy is my friend type of deal? Until they come into my neighborhood of course. Then I’ll WCF those weirdos.

    Like

  17. Letusca anva Ammeda, the real point about third world pentecostalism v. papalism is that it’s a short hop from one syncretistic, non-doctrinal, unbiblical, sensual superstigion to another.

    Like

  20. Clete,

    Just pointing out that your boat has sprung multiple leaks.

    I would take a Penetcostal who is looking to Christ alone over a Catholic who is looking to Christ, plus the Pope, plus his own works, plus Mary, plus that relic he saw a while back, plus those indulgences he got on Twitter on World Youth Day any time.

    Like

  21. Clete,

    You’re wearing down. Take a week off. Enjoy your family. I’ve been here long enough to recognize burnout. The overzealous have come and gone. The list of them is long.

    Like

  23. Erik, as regards theological obsession, our historian is no stranger to such things. Thanks, as always, just doing a link for posterity(say hello Tom).

    Bryan and I would likely enjoy a game of golf. Even Obama golfs with his rivals. What that’s about keeping friends close…but keep your…what… what

    Kidding. Bryan, these blogs are a riot. I call this the Inter-web Calvinist Civil War of 2014. Listen to the American Historian. Smart man, he was at the OPC’s GA. You’d like him, I think, in real life.

    I only work here..

    Like

  24. Clete loses Dame, well if the pope’s opinion is more than opinion, but it turns out his opinion is no longer accurate or the green light doesn’t come on indicating when it’s opinion and when its infallible teaching, who are we to believe, mr. layman?

    Like

  26. Blogdom is the wild wild west. If I get the first comment on Darryls blog, am I the fastest draw in the west? Killed manbearpig?

    Darryl, I’ll answer for Bryan, he appears tied up. Yes. Fun. Ye haw.

    Grace and peace, OPC brah,
    adb

    Like

  28. Said the shockingly surprised Future Farmers of America, Betty Crocker Scholarship winner to Francis I (assuming there will be a II) as it concerned Callings, Urgings, APBs and sundry Joyless sojourning:

    “Made wan by carrying one formidable simian freight, Callus brought to mind the ungirded January moon. Adam and Jesus had seen it ringed thick with colors of clay and slate and midnight-blue. All was contracting now and the vowed perfection living in hope of Catching God at the Beginning, before Scripture, while simultaneously Catching Him at the end and after Scripture, well, the angel-faced and lion-hearted Bonheoffer would have none of it: ‘God breathed life into the Nostrils of your father at the beginning of this seemingly interminable middle and while Kin may rage and rave, in the middle shall they remain.’”

    Like

  29. Erik:You’re wearing down. Take a week off. Enjoy your family. I’ve been here long enough to recognize burnout. The overzealous have come and gone. The list of them is long.

    A few were so memorable that folk songs were written in their name.

    Like

  30. And again, Bryan misses a chance to defend Francis in favor of defending his website. This is different from NCR egalitarianism only in terms of choosing which items off the RC buffet line agree with one’s palate. When Bryan shuts down CtC, following Francis warning;

    “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”

    “Yes, in this quest to seek and find God in all things there is still an area of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself.”

    even if he doesn’t agree(I believe that I might understand), then Bryan’s orthopraxy will be consonant with his faith claims. Until then he’s disobedient, uncharitable, unloving, petulant and seeking his own truth. Bend the knee to your ‘papa’, Bryan.

    Like

  31. Sean,

    I don’t understand. Are you saying Bryan or other RCs wouldn’t hold to “I believe that I might understand” and in that way disagree with Francis? Saying one believes so he might understand does not necessitate then abandoning Rome’s claims for itself and being forced to embrace Protestantism’s approach in order to be consistent, nor does embracing Rome’s claims and resisting Protestantism’s claims mean one has reduced faith to rationalism/ideology. I believe that I might understand, but also faith works with reason. Navigates a mean between the 2 extremes of rationalism and fideism.

    Like

  32. Tv boy Cletus van Winkle,

    Got a dog in this fight? What is it? You’re a catholic you say, tv boy? What’s the deal with all the questions? Just here to chat? Do you like movies , or just TV? I like movies.

    Peace, tv lover. Don’t let your head turn into a tv. Outdoorsie stuff is neat, ask muddy..

    Like

  33. Andrew,

    I like movies, tv, and turtles. I like outdoors as well. Hiked Guadalupe Peak earlier this month – hit it up if you’re ever passing through west Texas – careful of ice/snow in winter. Glorious views.

    Like

  34. Darryl,

    Bryan, you haven’t shown how you’re theory squares with Bill Buckley. So nothing you’ve said has disproved my point.

    The accuser has the burden of proof.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  35. CVD, give up your claims to certainty and doctrinal security. According to extraordinary charism, you’re a false prophet. And the poles are not rationalism and fideism, although Bryan is guilty of the later, but stark rationalism and relativism. The encounter with God is not found in the ‘certainty’ of your understanding but in the encounter with the divine that humbles you in your creatureliness. If doubt is not the companion of faith, then you haven’t encountered the infinite. I can do Ignatian spirituality with you all day, but it’s more of the same. And, more important for these discussions, your papi is calling you to encounter your God on the margins and with the poor and in risk and doubt. And if you don’t know this God, then you don’t know THE God. Your CIP has no bearing on the reality of your faith. So sayeth your Father.

    Like

  36. Sean,

    “The encounter with God is not found in the ‘certainty’ of your understanding but in the encounter with the divine that humbles you in your creatureliness.”

    Uh, yeah. Where does RCism teach assent to its doctrines/claims is rationally necessitated? The assent of faith is not rationally compelled (that’s why faith merits), although it should be rationally supported. Its claims are not rationally demonstrable like a math proof (nor were Christ’s) but are (and must be) quite reasonable. If they were the former, stark rationalism, and if they weren’t the latter, blind fideism.

    “If doubt is not the companion of faith, then you haven’t encountered the infinite.”

    The assent of faith is not rationally necessitated. But if reason is not also the companion of faith, you’re a blind fideist. Christ gave evidence and reason to assent to His claims. God made us in His image and gave us reason for a purpose.

    Like

  37. CVD, don’t talk to me. Your Father is the one espousing Ignatian spirituality, reconcile with him. You keep talking like the dogma is the thing, Francis assures you it’s not. It’s just like Maradiaga bringing Mueller up short, the German gestapo at the CDF has been put on a short leash as well. At least Kenneth knows what time it is. I reject your CIP, MOC considered, in favor of the PIP. There isn’t another move to make here. My point is, your papi is telling you you are part of the problem.

    Like

  38. The accuser has the burden of proof.

    Is that the pope talking? I though I was accused if heresy. No wait, I’m a separated brother? No wait, I’m anathema? No wait…

    You call us home, Bryan. If you care, tell us why you are doing this.

    Think of me as a seven year old. Why why why?

    Why ask why, you may say? Light up, and have a bud. Machen is your friend. As are we.

    Tell your dear leader to lift Brother Martin’s excom.

    Until then, over and out.

    Ps or think of me as my dog. What do you want? I’ll even fetch your golf ball, like a good boy..just what is it you are after, here?

    Like

  39. Sean,

    I see you like to stick to your pre-cooked narratives. Compelling. I have shown how my position and Rome’s claims are compatible with Francis’ condemnation of stark rationalism/ideology/legalism and reason divorced from faith. It wasn’t difficult.

    Like

  41. A trad accusing someone else of a pre-cooked narrative. Well, you should know. Nevertheless, the irony is rich. Hello Pot. However, though I’m a better son of Vat II than you are, I’ll lay my corporate and spiritual works next to yours any day, you need to sell your defense to your papi, not me. You guys can’t get out of the fall in Eden, much less anywhere else in the inscripturated apostolic tradition to have a discussion with me.

    Like

  46. Bryan’s latest concerning crooked analogies and arrows, spraypainted targets and snipehunting fish in a barrel of monkeys assumes what he needs to prove:

    1.That the reformed confessions are not in submission to Scripture, but lord it over Scripture contra what they explicitly declare; that they are unreformable not only in principle, but in practice.

    2.Scripture never ever clearly interprets or expressly appeals to itself over and above other authorities, magisterial or no. IOW “it is written” cannot be found within the apostolic deposit of canonical Scripture.

    3. Solipsistic private protestant judgement, if it is even capable of understanding his (infallible?) argument for the infallible sacred sacramental magisterial authority of the pope, is just as equally incapable of understanding Scripture.

    And as he is quick to tells us, “the accuser bears burden of proof”.
    Fine Donald, but heal thyself first or quit thy quacking.

    Like

  47. I see you like to stick to your pre-cooked narratives. Compelling. I have shown how my position and Rome’s claims are compatible with Francis’ condemnation of stark rationalism/ideology/legalism and reason divorced from faith. It wasn’t difficult.

    Sounds like a less than infallible interpretation to me.
    Pot, kettle, turkey.
    Stuff it.

    Like

  50. Clete,

    You’re wearing down. Take a week off. Enjoy your family. I’ve been here long enough to recognize burnout. The overzealous have come and gone. The list of them is long.

    Goes the chartogropher.

    Give those callers all you got. yo.

    Just take care,and I will too.

    Like

  51. Cletus van (a little less winkle now than before this comment):

    West Texas, huh. Breathe in that air that is just so free, and think on the cool cats and dogs out weseterner than you.

    With every passing combox where you share of yourself, you make yourself more existent. Thanks for this. Take care.

    PS hey, open a twitter account, with a pic of clete. That pic on wikipedia makes this dog whimper, you could really see a change in blog chatroom discussions, you never know..

    Like

  52. Sad that Bryan has taken as his role model Captain Christopher Pike, one beep is gushing approval for those that agree with him and two beeps is a snarky and prissy (and desperately friggin lame) refutation.

    Like

  55. “Well one of the 3 actually claims his opinion is more than opinion. The other 2 don’t.”

    But didn’t the Pope recently say, “Who am I to judge?”

    Well, is he Alter Christus or not?

    Like

  56. Oh, the pope of my youth just keeps giving. You prot-catholics come gather around and learn what you weren’t there to catch. Come imbibe of the pastoral direction and charism of your papi. Bend the knee you fundamentalists. Come partake and be filled.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/pope-francis-internet-_n_4650198.html

    “In comments that will likely rile the more conservative wing of the church, Francis suggested that in engaging in that dialogue, Catholics shouldn’t be arrogant in insisting that they alone possess the truth.

    “To (have a) dialogue means to believe that the ‘other’ has something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and perspective,” Francis wrote. “Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the pretense that they alone are valid and absolute.”

    Like

  57. More from your papi;

    “He called for communications in the digital era to be like “a balm which relieves pain and a fine wine which gladdens hearts” and for the church’s message to not be one of bombarding others with Christian dogma.

    “May the light we bring to others not be the result of cosmetics or special effects, but rather of our being loving and merciful neighbors to those wounded and left on the side of the road,” he said.

    Oh you trad, false prophets, monster makers and Germans, turn from your wicked ways. Come meet the God who is with his people on the margins, let Him make straight your crooked paths. Your papi bids you to come and be healed and trade your simpleness for wisdom.

    Like

  60. Unificator, it’s worse than that, there are pictures of him holding babies. He’s crafty and quick, you can’t hope to keep up but just try to hold on.

    Like

  62. Sean,

    “Francis suggested that in engaging in that dialogue, Catholics shouldn’t be arrogant in insisting that they alone possess the truth”

    Uh yeah. Ever read Vat2? But do keep your narrative trucking along.
    Btw, I like Francis. Cool dude.

    Like

  65. Finished watching the documentary on Lonnie Frisbee. Fascinating stuff with insights into the California Christian Counterculture scene of the late 1960s, the beginnings of Calvary Chapel and The Vineyard, and the whole California religious milieu that Jason emerged from. Available on DVD from Netflix.

    Like

  66. CVD, yes, but I must admit it’s reference material. However, I ,along with your papi, am all about the interpretation and application, which is the whole point of charism. I’m here to help you trads out with the interpretation you missed out on, just in case your not catching Francis; Germans, certainty, ideologies and narrowness, bad. Third world, mercy, works of mercy, pastoral posture, and openness, good. No little German religious aristocrat clones, please. The heritage of John XXIII, has returned with chaps and spurs on.

    Like

  69. Erik, it’s pretty interesting stuff. Boy, Wimber was something else and Wagner. This odd mix of primal scream and flower power. Then Fuller theological sanctified it all.

    Like

  70. Mark,

    “But if Hart chose the WCF and then learned to agree with it by means of silent and submissive “implicit faith”, then he is no longer guilty of biblicism?”

    He couldn’t do that with the WCF. Because the WCF makes no claims for itself as infallible or having divine authority.

    Like

  72. Sean,

    I was expecting more babes. Apparently all the really good looking girls were still going out with the guys from the Mainline because they had all the money.

    Like

  73. Pope Francis’ goal for the internet: “A balm which relieves pain and a fine wine which gladdens hearts.”

    Old Life’s goal for the internet: “Transforming cyberspace one intransigent boob at a time.”

    Like

  77. Darryl, I don’t know about the ECF but last I looked Bryan was too busy interpreting Evangelii Gaudium and finding Francis’ internal Benedict on abortion, gay marriage and contraception in section III. Somehow Bryan’s interpretation failed to pick up the antagonism toward religious German aristocrats, restorationists, legalists and monster makers. This lay charism isn’t as easy as it looks. It helps if you were there to ‘catch more than you learn’. I should probably hang a shingle.

    Like

  78. Bryan’s latest comment on CTC is that he is not approving any more comments so that he can pray more during this prayer for Christian unity week.

    What does a prayer for Christian unity look like for a RC of the CTC variety. Wouldn’t it be something like “Dear God, please convert the schismatics to the Roman Catholic Church”? Not sure how that jives with finding truth elsewhere.

    Like

  80. There’s hope yet, see?

    Cyril is counted among the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, and his reputation within the Christian world has resulted in his titles Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers, but Theodosius II, the Roman Emperor, condemned him for behaving like a “proud pharaoh”…

    The Roman Catholic Church did not commemorate Saint Cyril in the Tridentine Calendar: it added his feast only in 1882, assigning to it the date of 9 February. The 1969 revision moved it to 27 June…

    Thus ends my Hagiography for today..

    Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

    Like

  81. D.G.,

    The Callers are in their prayer closets praying for Christian unity. The site is basically closed for business until the 25th (it is a .com, after all). It looks like a Jewish delicatessen on Yom Kippur over there.

    I wonder if that unity includes the possibility that everyone becomes Reformed Protestants?

    Like

  82. Robert, who has impressed me immensely of late, stole my thunder.

    Robert, what is your story? Tell us about yourself without piercing the cloak of anonymity (should you wish to leave it un-pierced).

    Church affiliation, age, favorites movies, Caller you’re most irritated by…basic stuff like that.

    Like

  84. On “Unity Week”:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/cardinals-statement-that-council-of.html

    Cardinal’s statement that Council of Trent still “fully valid” in Netherlands casts poo-poo on unity week

    It’s “the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity” in the Netherlands, but a bad old Cardinal, a card-carrying member of the Roman Magisterium, has cast a poo-poo on all of that by reminding everyone that the anathemas of the Council of Trent are still valid.

    An official “Church spokesperson” “expressed shock” and dismissed the Cardinal’s words as “merely theoretical”.

    Cardinal Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht and head of the Dutch bishops’ conference, told the Protestant daily Reformatorisch Dagblad that the Council’s condemnations of Martin Luther’s teachings, for example on the Eucharist, still justified excluding Protestants from receiving communion in the Catholic Church.

    The Council was “a sign of the self-cleansing power” of the Church because it corrected abuses that had developed in its ranks, he said.

    The Protestant response was cool.

    “It is not biblical to say the Church is always right,” said Gerrit de Fijter, chairman of the Protestant National Synod.

    Bas Plaisier, former head of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, said he “didn’t understand what [Eijk] is doing.”

    A Catholic theologian, Marcel Poorthuis from Tilburg University, said Eijk was being more negative than Pope Benedict XVI about Protestants.

    Church spokeswoman Anna Kruse expressed shock at the reactions and noted that Eijk had called the Trent condemnations “mainly a theoretical issue” and did not intend to offend Protestants.

    Like

  85. Be careful not to mock prayer.

    Sanctimony much, over here. Just its OK to pray for unity, as Christians, guys. Prayers for these onliners even doesn’t seem too out of place. They make themselves public, and what I see out here actually does make this fold hearted Calvinist a bit sad.

    Dont mind me while I turn in my Calvinist Jerk card..

    Over and out, olts.

    Like

  87. Erik,

    Robert, who has impressed me immensely of late, stole my thunder.

    Robert, what is your story? Tell us about yourself without piercing the cloak of anonymity (should you wish to leave it un-pierced).

    Church affiliation, age, favorites movies, Caller you’re most irritated by…basic stuff like that.

    Between you, Andrew and some others, I’m going to start getting a big head:

    Family—Married with two children under the age of 4
    Church—PCA
    Age—38
    Favorite Movies—Hard. I don’t watch a lot of independent movies like some of you seem to. If I admit Napolean Dynamite being in my top ten, what does that say about me?
    Caller I’m most annoyed with—Hmm. Should I go with the obvious answer? 🙂

    The thing that annoys me about the Callers is the horrible argument that they all make about how they have certainty and all we have is opinion, Blah, Blah. A lot of these guys have PhDs in philosophy and they just make all sorts of bad arguments. And they ignore history. And if you don’t presume that Roman Catholicism is the one true church, they basically resort to saying you’re begging the questions or, like Cletus, saying that you can only criticism Rome based on Rome’s premises being true. Its all a rather bizarre mix of credulity and a radical kind of presuppostionalism that takes the church as the defining article of faith. Plus, the cynic in me raises an eyebrow at people who end every single post with “in the peace of Christ.” We get it. You are pious.

    I think the appeal of CTC is primarily for those who want to look smart. I mean, if you can follow and agree with the thousands of words written, you must be as smart as those guys who wrote them. I don’t mean that as an insult, a lot of us want to look smart or to feel as if we “get it.” There’s a certain gnostic sensibility to the whole CTC argument. They’re the ones who REALLY get what Jesus meant, not us. Whatever.

    The whole argument is a bunch of hand-waving. Nobody over there ever really starts to look at whether the actual Apostolic tradition that is tangibly verifiable tells us that the church would be gifted with infallibility. And then all evidence to the contrary is summarily ignored (3 popes, conciliar movement, sex abuse scandal, early church history). Their whole basis for security is a claim that while Rome is based on infallibility, Protestantism is based on opinion. Just look at the arguments Cletus makes. If a mere claim to infallibility is enough to rock your Protestant world, you were never a good Protestant. These people want to believe that they’ve somehow done something different by choosing the Roman Church. And none of them realize that they are as guilty of following the Roman Church only insofar as it lines up with their interpretation of Scripture and tradition as anyone else on the planet.

    It just makes no sense, quite honestly. They go on and on about how we can’t trust ourselves as Protestants to know what is true because of our “opinion” and then they think they’ve solved a non-existent problem by doing the same thing and trusting the Roman church. I mean, how is it consistent to not trust your interpretation of Scripture but then to believe you can trust your interpretation of the evidence to discern the body that claims to interpret Scripture infallibly. It’s absolute nonsense, and the ultimate end of their problems with certainty is not Rome but rank relativism or atheism.

    I could go on. Sorry for the rant…

    There is a big problem when I could make a better case for Rome than these converts can. I don’t see any reason to trust that Rome is the one true church, but I could give more plausible reasons than these callers do. Vatican 2 really messed things up for these callers’ paradigm; they just don’t realize it. If nobody knows what in the heck V2 really means or how it is to be applied, the call to communion is empty indeed.

    And the religion they promote just doesn’t exist anywhere except in a syllogism.

    Now I’m really done.

    Like

  88. Andrew and some others, I’m going to start getting a big head:

    I have an alibi. The OLTS WEB 9000 (not 2000, Darryl) has taken over. He’s been posting for months. I’ve been living on a ranch on then moon. This is a pre recorded note in case its discovered how conceited I am..

    No hope without what again…?

    PS they are making another terminator movie. Of course they would. Follow the money. Surprise!

    Like

  89. It’s absolute nonsense, and the ultimate end of their problems with certainty is not Rome but rank relativism or atheism.

    This is true. And a good illustration of this is Stellman’s threat to move to Orthodoxy or agnosticism given continued pursuit.

    I don’t know if my crippling doubt is the fault of my RCism or within me, as a defective person. I want to know Jesus, truly. The amount of time that God is on my mind, daily, is hard for me to measure because I need to understand what I haven’t yet understood. And I can’t do that via RCism or to be honest, simply via Paul. I want to understand Scripture so that I can harmonize what at first read appears to be contradictory between Paul and Peter and Matthew and John. For that, Scripture is the only place to turn and return.

    Basil in the late 4th C says that he doesn’t consider the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother to be an article of faith but then moves on to ostracize anyone who isn’t attached to it. It amounts to an admission of iffy knowledge plus offended taste, and that doesn’t surprise me at all. The Blessed Mother was bound to be considered important. She was chosen, like Abraham was chosen and that has meaning and value and the longing to integrate her into the Christian family is natural.

    I do think the argument that the Church gave us Scripture is true but does that make it its property over and against the faithful? And has the church maintained fidelity for that ownership to continue?

    Francis says that God existed before Scripture and exists after it, and it’s in the beyond and in conjunction w/the Magisterium that meaning must be pursued. I won’t be following him there because I can more safely avoid the resulting spiritual and economic anomia on my own. I agree w/an Orthodox priest who advised that the most dangerous thing to do is to read Scripture and the second most dangerous thing to do is not read it.

    I think I’m self-excommunicated but I continue to pray the Mass probably about 10 times a year and still contribute to the parish of my youth. Like Lewis observed of his fellow congregant who sang bad hymns devotedly and well, there are saints there whose boots I’m not fit to clean. I guess I’ll consider myself excommunicated for good when someone returns my contributions.

    Like

  90. Cardinal Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht and head of the Dutch bishops’ conference, told the Protestant daily Reformatorisch Dagblad that the Council’s condemnations of Martin Luther’s teachings, for example on the Eucharist, still justified excluding Protestants from receiving communion in the Catholic Church.

    And thus is must remain, but we can pray for unity Psalm 133 style. The fact is, the issues are as real today as they were in 1517. We must not budge an iota.

    Thanks, John.

    Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

    Like

  91. Robert,

    Between you, Andrew and some others, I’m going to start getting a big head:

    Hey, man, greeting from the OPC out in Northern California. I send my well wishes to you, your family, and your congregation. Peace of the Lord!

    I mean it, that I don’t know anyone who sustains like you do out here. You’ve made an inlmpression on me. For all that’s worth..

    Ultimately, I find Cletus Van Damme deceitful, and I refuse to waste my time. This isn’t my blog after all..

    You got small kids, man, I remember having two kids under the age of 4. My three are now under the age of 8, and Im not sure why I do what I do out here. Maybe it’s for moments like this to connect with potentially like minded Christians here in “Hart’s Bar.”

    That’s not at all to suggest that you or anyone should stop with CvD or in Catholic blogs. Just take care of yourself. Thanks for sharing out here with us.

    Like

  92. Michael Sean Winters? Congrats, Dr. Hart. You’ve become as disingenuous and incoherent as the American Catholic left. The argument is bogus because all papal statements are not offered with the same level of authority as “infallibility,” which is rarely invoked. All papal statements are not considered to be above criticism or disagreement.

    To the substance, not that any of your commenters have yet troubled themselves with the actual content of your post:

    Richard John Neuhaus. In Myers, ed., Aspiring to Freedom (1988) 153. “This is the occasion of the document’s strictures against the ‘blind submission to pure consumerism’. It seems that the pope intends to warn against the classic vice of gluttony, and that warning is of course always in order. But his warning descends into a description of life in the ‘superdeveloped’ countries that few Americans, for example, would recognize as an accurate version of how they actually live.

    Like

  93. Tom,

    All papal statements are not considered to be above criticism or disagreement.

    Well, then what good is he(by the how long before we have a woman pope? Maybe after Francis?)?

    As the Vicar of Christ, we read the office is

    earthly representative of God or Christ” but also used in sense of “person acting as parish priest in place of a real parson”

    Such a human I would conisder, in some sense, to be one bad ass mo fo, if you’ll permit me to use the parlance standard for these surroundings. My pastor certainly isn’t to be viewed this way, I wonder why it is so for the Cats’ pastor? Historical development and traditions of men elevated above Scripture, much? That’s where I’m at, anyway..

    In other words, I can’t make heads or tails of what Catholics mean half the time. It seems you think live got this down. I wonder why you think that..

    Surely such a vicar should be able to pass the barrier of issuance of something for which there can be no disagreement. Like, I don’t know, that Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6). The current pope seems especially given to foot in mouth disease, I hope he doesn’t misspeak if asked to interpret that verse just alluded to.

    So yeah, not sure in get your point, but cheers, all the same, matey.

    Like

  94. So, for example :

    CHAPTER V
    OFFICES IN THE CHURCH

    1. Our Lord Jesus Christ established his church of the new covenant on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The apostles were appointed to be witnesses to the risen Christ, testifying in the Holy Spirit to what they had seen and heard, heralding the gospel to the world, and grounding the church in the teaching of Christ. Together with the prophets they spoke by revelation, recording in the Scriptures of the New Testament the fullness of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. When their testimony was completed their calling and office was not continued in the church, and the powers and signs that endued and sealed their ministry ceased.

    2. Our Lord continues to build his church through the ministry of men whom he calls and endues with special gifts for teaching, ruling, and serving. Some of these special gifts can be most profitably exercised only when those who possess them have been publicly recognized as called of Christ to minister with authority. It is proper to speak of such a publicly recognized function as an office, and to designate men by such scriptural titles of office and calling as evangelist, pastor, teacher, bishop, elder, or deacon. There are diversities of ministry within any office, for every man is called to be a steward of his own gifts. At the same time, a general designation of office may be applied to a group of functions within which separate offices could be distinguished.

    3. The ordinary and perpetual offices in the church are those given for the ministry of the Word of God, of rule, and of mercy. Those who share in the rule of the church may be called elders (presbyters), bishops, or church governors. Those who minister in mercy and service are called deacons. Those elders who have been endued and called of Christ to labor also in the Word and teaching are called ministers.

    Just by way of contrast, Tom,and I happen to think our view of offices in the church more closely aligns to New Testament teaching and example.

    Peace..

    Like

  95. Tvd, “the actual content of your post”? No one else discerns it? Only the great game show victor?

    It was about the laity speaking for the church more than the bishops.

    You really should be a helicopter mom.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.