Why Ecclesiastical Diversity Is A Good Thing (or not)

First, an appreciation of traditionalist Roman Catholics (from a Protestant-turned Roman Catholic priest):

I’m not a traditionalist. To quote Fr.Z, I just want to “say the black and do the red”. In other words, I want to live my life as a Catholic priest where I am today in this situation in the twenty first century–realizing that things are not perfect–but knowing that they never have been. Within that I try to be faithful to my vocation as a Benedictine oblate and a Diocesan priest.
But while I am not a traditionalist, I appreciate them and here’s why:

One of the riches of the Catholic Church is her unity and diversity. Within the Catholic big tent we have different religious orders, ecclesial movements and associations of the faithful. Some of these are formally organized and recognized–others are more amorphous but still identifiable. We have different tastes, different trends, different tendencies. The Lord has given us many ways to follow Christ. Each of these different traditions, spiritualities, emphases and disciplines offer particular strengths and weaknesses. Each of them have a particular charism and something to offer the whole church.

The reason I love traditionalists is the same reason I love Franciscans or Charismatic Catholics or Jesuits or Missionaries of Charity or Friars of the Renewal or Priests for Life or Benedictines or Legionnaires….and on and on and on. Each of these groups or sub-categories in the church offer the whole church a particular vision and aspect of the whole truth, and members of each group serve the church best by being faithful to Christ within their path. The traditionalists offer us a reminder of the hermeneutic of continuity. They work hard to bring forward the best in our Catholic traditions of spirituality, liturgy, music, art and architecture. They remind us of the call to radical discipleship and the need to love the Lord with our whole heart.

Does Father Longenecker also appreciate the nuns or the editors of America? I don’t think so. But he doesn’t think he has embraced relativism because the pope is the pope and when popes change things, change is good (what happens when the liturgy changes and the new order of the Mass loses efficacy is a question he doesn’t address):

This is not to endorse a kind of Catholic relativism in which everybody should just do as they please. Within the diversity we have unity in our obedient allegiance to the magisterium. There is an enormous amount of latitude in the Catholic Church, but there boundaries. History shows that any sub group can become corrupt, twisted, heretical or schismatic. It happens. This is why all of the sub groups in the Catholic Church are to be committed not only first and foremost to following Jesus Christ, but also being submissive to the authority of his Vicar on earth. Mother Church properly corrects, adjusts and directs both the individuals and the groups within the church. In this way our diversity is celebrated while our unity is affirmed.

I realize that traditionalists may not appreciate my take on the matter. [Me: they don’t.] They may say, “But we are not a sub group of the church. The Latin Mass is the mass of the ages. This is what all Catholics used to do. We’re keeping the true faith! The others are all wrong.” I understand that opinion, but that’s not actually the teaching of the Catholic Church. Like it or not, the second Vatican Council has taken place. Like it or not, by decree or by popular practice, changes have happened.

But it turns out that even mainline Protestants know diversity is not workable:

I am not staying in the PC(USA) because I believe the theological diversity in the denomination is good for me. I’ve heard this sort of thing from my friends, both evangelicals and progressives. An evangelical will say, “I need to be in a church with [supply name of your favorite liberal] because she challenges me and helps me to think more clearly and truly and not to get into an evangelical rut.” A liberal will say, “I need to be in a church with [supply name of your favorite evangelical] because he challenges me and helps me to think more clearly and truly and not to get into a liberal rut.”

I’m not persuaded by this argument. I have plenty of friends who are more conservative than I am theologically, and plenty of friends who are more liberal than I am theologically. These friends challenge me and help to keep me honest in my theology and discipleship. I appreciate these friends and I am glad they’re in my life. But they are not members of the PC(USA). In fact, given their views on various issues, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to be in the same denomination. Yet we can be friends. We can join together in certain kinds of short-term ministry. We can talk theology and challenge each other. We can love each other with the love of Christ. We can be in the church of Jesus Christ together. But our differences are such that we’d have a very hard time being in the same particular church or denomination. If we tried to be a denomination together, we’d exhaust ourselves trying to manage our differences, leaving very little time for mission.

When folks say, “I need so-and-so in my denomination to challenge me and keep me honest,” it almost sounds as if they’re limiting their Christian relationships to people of the same denomination. Yet if this is not true, won’t they be challenged and kept honest by Christian brothers and sisters from other denominations?

. . . In my opinion, one of the main reasons the PC(USA) is failing in its mission and losing members at such a rapid rate is the ineffectiveness that comes from untenable theological diversity. We have been trying so hard to stay together in spite of our differences that we don’t have the energy and focus needed for effective mission. . . . Now I’m all in favor of contexts in which those who are committed to evangelism are challenged to consider the biblical call to social justice. And I’m equally open to conversations that challenge the justice folk to consider how their efforts should be a reflection of the Christian gospel. But I believe that efforts of people actually to do evangelism and efforts of people actually to do justice can be hampered if they can’t agree on what evangelism is or what justice is. A certain measure of theological diversity will strengthen a denomination or a church or a committee. But too much diversity will weaken them and make it almost impossible for them to fulfill their mission. . . .

So, in sum, I’m not staying in the PC(USA) because I need to be in fellowship with people who have different theologies than I have. I have plenty of non-PC(USA) friends who fill this bill, and could always find more if needed. I do believe that a certain amount of theological diversity is healthy in a church or denomination. But, in my opinion, what we have in the PC(USA) is too diverse to support effective mission. We PC(USA) folk are like a team of backpackers who are carrying such a giant tent on our backs that we can’t make it up the mountain we’re supposed to climb. As a result, we’re unable to fulfill our mission. At some point we’ll have to choose, I expect, whether we want to keep hanging on to our big tent and remain missionally stuck, or whether it’s time to carry smaller tents that will enable us to start moving up the mountain.

Would a pope fix this, or does the papacy simply hide fundamental incompatibilities? I’m still waiting for Bryan to think about this.

86 thoughts on “Why Ecclesiastical Diversity Is A Good Thing (or not)

  1. Dr. Hart,

    In a few minutes, I’m sure Bryan will pop in and link to an article that shows why RCs truly aren’t divided (but only as long as you pretend that the theological diversity is either meaningless or that people have self-excommunicated themselves even if the pope accepts them to their inaugural mass. I’m looking at you Joe Biden.)

    Isn’t it clear, nothing can disprove or even raise legitimate suspicions against Rome. I don’t see how any of these PhDs could survive anywhere except an extremely traditionalist RC university.

    Like

  2. Everything Catholic is good.

    Everything else is…well…’not good’.

    Gotta love that self-focused, ladder climbing religion. The very thing that Christ Jesus obliterated on the Cross.

    But hey…we have a Pope. We just gotta be right.

    Like

  3. Admittedly somewhat off topic, the “unity and diversity” here reminded me of Van Til (emphasis mine):

    Unoriginal as his doctrinal formulations may be, his use of those formulations – his application of them – is often quite remarkable. The sovereignty of God becomes an epistemological, as well as a religious and metaphysical principle. The Trinity becomes the answer to the philosophical problem of the one and the many. Common grace becomes the key to a Christian philosophy of history. These new applications of familiar doctrines inevitably increase [Christians’] understanding of the doctrines themselves, for [they] come thereby to a new appreciation of what these doctrines demand of [them].[3]

    Thanks.

    Like

  4. Fr. Longenecker is no doubt a good man and as you see he demands that the faithful put Christ before all though he reminds RC of the need to submit to the Vicar. That’s the way it should be. It’s the RC way to repeat Chortles‘ Menchen quote. Yet here’s where you’ll find all of the difficulty: “Vatican II happened, that can’t be changed,” because in that is the pregnancy that can’t or won’t end. That can’t deliver a child, a certainty.

    I’m really not a Trad in that I never had New Mass angst, the transition to one’s own language is fruitful. But the disregard that RCism shows for those it formed in a certain manner and at a certain time; the tearing away of the Latin Mass from all of those who had been attached to it, was an act of egregiously alienating clericalism and in that sentiment or lack of it, is the base upon which you can transfer one deviant priest to another parish and be convinced you’ve acted in the best interest of all concerned.

    The Trads are dying, they’re no threat and they’re no resource for the future. I identify with them in many ways because I remember being taught what they were taught and to be asked to pretend that it isn’t at variance w/the current RC catechism is, IMO, way too much to ask.

    Those who convened VII faced a modernity that had the power to reduce the RC faith of the time to nothing. It had to adapt to an open-faced society and from that were born Rome’s governing majority liberals of today. I don’t identify with them, but I don’t dislike them either. I just disagree with them and in that there is very little room for unity with Jesus at the Center.

    What Fr. Longenecker longs for cannot be because the old remember, the middle-aged rule without tether and the young fall away.

    P.S. Thanks for the blog D.G Hart.

    P.P.S I’m making bread w/a 75% hydration quotient. Very difficult to work with but worth it.

    For Erik: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3n6OVIYW4k

    Like

  5. Bryan, this convo between you and Hart has interest, at least to me, primarily because you left Reformed-dom, only to turn around and blog about us. Sticking up for where God has planted the Andrew B Flower in His garden is my only motive. You see? I didn’t bring up golf.

    Fore!

    Like

  6. Jack, boy howdy.

    Still, my heart gets all excited when I see the hat show up at OLTS. Not sure why, just glad to know he types oldlife dot org into his browser still.

    I feel that love, yo yo

    Like

  7. Olivia,

    The trads are dying?!? lol you are completely disconnected from reality. Militant traditionalism is a young persons movement. Traditional parishes are flourishing. Traditional convents are alive and well. Traditional seminaries are brimming. If anything is rattling off its dying breath its the liberal movement within the Church. I think A great comparison can be found within the protestant world. It is not liberal churches such as the PCUSA that boom in converts and win souls for the Lord. Liberal wishy washy Christianity never gets passed one generation. The children just opt out for their own private spirituality. The “Trad movement” is both the past and the future of Roman Catholicism. Neocatholics be prepared to adjust your apologetic material accordingly

    Like

  8. DGHART,

    I threw up in my mouth a little bit at this part….

    The reason I love traditionalists is the same reason I love Franciscans or Charismatic Catholics or Jesuits or Missionaries of Charity or Friars of the Renewal or Priests for Life or Benedictines or Legionnaires….and on and on and on. Each of these groups or sub-categories in the church offer the whole church a particular vision and aspect of the whole truth, and members of each group serve the church best by being faithful to Christ within their path.

    This is the neocatholic mantra. Im OK your OK. Lets all just get along. No thanks.

    http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/127-the-neo-catholic-mantra-i-m-ok-you-re-ok

    Like

  9. Kenneth, remind me to write a blog post on you. You showing up here made my day almost as much as Jack just now.

    Peace, dude.

    PS – I think your HTML skills have improved. come practice on my blog anytime, visitors welcome. you know, whenver you need an escape, and all that..(emoticon)

    Like

  10. You can stop waiting. I have already thought about it and dismissed it because it presupposes the prot question begging paradigm in which the Motives of Probability Credibility are seen as incredible on the basis of Scripture, reason and history and therefore performatively counterproductive to genuine Roman Catholic evangelism ecumenicism.

    IOW dude bin suckin serious air since the whole shebang got started.
    Makes me almost think that those Mormon boys needed a couple of nails in their tires before this whole thing commenced and we could of had some Hindus pull substitute. Maybe Byrome would have ended up Christian Scientist or Bahai. (Tommy of course, would still be telling us that they rocked the house, but hey, there’s nothing certain paradigms aren’t blind to.)

    I know, ad hom/uncharitable resnarks like this make future cameo appearances questionable, but we already got Crazy Clete over here ripping off Scripture and trying to claim it for Crazy Francis’s communion, who incidentally, is not going to bless him for parroting the CtC line.

    You also have no way of knowing (well actually you do better than that and presume) Rome is not being accountable to Scripture if you disagree with her interpretations.

    As opposed to 1 Cor. 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”.

    IOW you can’t make this stuff up when one or another of the usual suspects keep showing up of their own totally depraved free will and handing their impervious infallible interpretations to you on a platter.

    As if there’s anything left for a hungry prot when they already ate it whole hog.

    Like

  11. impervious infallible interpretations to you on a platter.

    As if there’s anything left for a hungry prot when they already ate it whole hog.

    What’s worse, suckin air or turning the correction chrism off?
    Inquirous minds want to know.

    Like

  12. Andrew,

    Could you please write a blog about Bob first? I think he does more for the Roman Catholic cause than any internet apologist ever could. Following in the foot steps of James White who sends more people across the Tiber than Catholic Answers ever could. I would encourage anyone reading these posts to look up Bobs posting history. Ask yourself…. is this the salt of the earth? An ambassador of Christ? An example to the flock? The fruit of righteousness? Read the posts by Daryl and the others and ask the same question. This type of behavior is typical of calvinists… I say Amen! Show your fruit fellas. You do our work for us.

    Like

  13. Andrew,

    Could you please write a blog about Bob first?

    Kenneth, in your own words, what he does speaks for himself.

    If this place is too much, my playground is open for business. I know I am just an orthodox presbyterian deacon not curently serving a congregation, so that is what it is, and people come here to talk with Darryl. But in case you want some reformed theology off the hot air-waves of OLTS, I do put on a defense of where I am and try to make it entertaining. Consider it an open invitation. I don’t think we should combox against one another into infinity. It’s an honest attempt by yours truly.

    But now, enough of me and my commercial. Just don’t let other guys get you down. When you’ve got something to defend, you go to great lengths to do it. If you want to talk about OLTS at my blog, that’s what Tom Van Dyke did, I’ve got him on record saying a few things. It’s just open, is all.

    Peace.

    Like

  14. Kenneth,

    Lastly (and I apologize to you all in advance, now armed with my own blog, I can let it all out there in stead of here. I promise no more of this today), I refer you to these words (emphasis mine):

    People object to the Roman Catholics, for example, because they engage in “propaganda.” But why should they not engage in propaganda? And how should we have any respect for them if, holding the view which they hold — that outside the Roman church there is no salvation — they did not engage in propaganda first, last, and all the time? Clearly they have a right to do so, and clearly we have a right to do the same. . . .

    Does this mean, then, that we must eternally bite and devour one another, that acrimonious debate must never for a moment be allowed to cease? . . . . There is a common solution of the problem which we think ought to be taken to heart. It is the solution provided by family life.

    In countless families, there is a Christian parent who with untold agony of soul has seen the barrier of religious difference set up between himself or herself and a beloved child. Salvation, it is believed with all the heart, comes only through Christ, and the child, it is believed, unless it has really trusted in Christ, is lost. These, I tell you, are the real tragedies of life. And how trifling, in comparison, is the experience of bereavement of the like!

    But what do these sorrowing parents do? Do they make themselves uselessly a nuissance to their child? In countless cases they do not; in countless cases there is hardly a mention of the subject of religion; in countless cases there is nothing but prayer, and an agony of soul bravely covered by helpfulness and cheer.

    I should write a blog post on this instead, but will refrain, and only say that for anyone at OLTS to decry someone else’s demeanor is silly. I think this blog does so well to show the voluntary nature of blogging and commenting. No one is forcing you to drop in a comment and get jabbed by Bob S or others. Kenneth, you know what you are on record of saying against us here at OLTS. We pay attention, and take the blows.

    But you’re improving, I believe. And I thank you for that. I even hope you (and yes, you too Tom) stick around. The fact is (and I’m tearing up here, guys..) is that we like our religion, so we share and propogandize. Even more so, we love our Lord. So with that, go to church. And forget blogdom for a day. If you teach sunday school or play piano for your congregation, do so to the glory of God, and with all that is in you. It is a great God we serve, thank Him for the privelage to serve such a one as him.

    Peace.

    Like

  15. Kenloses, I feel your trad pain:

    The traditionalist pines for a day when the ‘Old Mass’ is the only (Latin-rite) Mass on offer. Indeed, we rightly hope for a day when young people simply have no idea what the ‘Novus Ordo’ even is. One day, please God, children will ask their elders to tell them of the bad old days, when churches offered a vernacular ‘New Mass’ alongside what these children only know to be ‘The Mass’. I can see it now. Our aged Catholic will go up into his attic, and come down with a book called Gather. His grandchildren will gasp. ‘Woa! They used this in Mass?’ they’ll ask. And then, with a heavy sigh, their grandparents will launch into animated stories about altar girls, lay readers, awful cantors, ‘extraordinary ministers’, and something called ‘traditionalism’.

    But then I don’t because the neo’s have a point about the papacy. If the papacy is what keeps RC coherent — the See of Rome is what makes it all stay together as “one church” — to put the old mass above the new one, or an old pope above the current pope, is to use a standard that transcends the Petrine office.

    And then you become a bleeping Protestant.

    Sorry, but you can’t have the pope and the old mass. To whom do you submit?

    Like

  16. DGHART,

    The standard that transcends the Petrine office is Sacred Tradition! Scripture is another.This attitude that the pope is never wrong and we defend his every private remark is completely novel and probably born out of the reformation. You can be a trad and keep the pope. You just have cultivate some patience.

    Like

  17. The most astonishing thing about the CTC apologetic (one of the most astonishing things, actually, they’re getting to be too many to count) is the stress on the necessity of the one unified visible church with Peter as its head. But then you aren’t allowed to use evidence from that one visible church to disprove it. “We’re one, you’re not,” they say, followed by, “ignore that part of the visible church that is bad and just focus on the part that is good.” It’s incoherent.

    Like

  18. Kenneth, so far, only crickets. Now for you:

    https://oldlife.org/2014/01/bible-thumper/comment-page-6/#comment-117847

    Andrew Buckingham
    Posted January 30, 2014 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
    Cletus van Tv man:

    For you:

    “It is arbitrary to reject the possibility of development of doctrine as applied to the papacy, while affirming the development of doctrine with respect to soteriology.”

    I’m truly ignorant with regard to Catholicism. I found the “Doctrines of Grace” at age 18 (coming from a baptist upbringing) and have been reveling in what I found.

    My question to you:

    Within the tradition I now exist, I view Calvin and Luther’s understanding of the doctrine of the Papacy to be the most true to new testatament teachings. Said another way, yes, the Papacy did develop, it developed into what is stated in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Why should I reject Calvin and instead join with someone else? You may consider this a rhetorical flourish if you like – so I am remaining tight lipped (and in a sense, “silent”) despite the words coming from my fingers here. Said another way, make your claim that Calvin in wrong and the Pope is right. Remember, when I found John Calvin, I was like a duck to water. So I’m not exactly running to put my tiber shorts on and take a dip. Or said rather, I’m a bit out of shape – likely the sharks would have a feast day if I felt like taking a dip.

    Just a blog,
    Andrew

    Like

  19. Then there’s my unanswered question: why a reformation?!

    https://oldlife.org/2014/01/less-powerful/comment-page-9/#comment-116340

    Cletus van Damme
    Posted January 21, 2014 at 11:44 pm | Permalink
    Andrew,

    Why do you think it happened? I mean – besides Rome bad.

    Andrew Buckingham
    Posted January 21, 2014 at 11:49 pm | Permalink
    Well, God, Cletus. Duh.

    But Robert said a while back, lay literacy.

    Or maybe someone lost rock paper scissors.

    I’m an accountant with too much catnip. I’m having a beer, and going to watch Dr. Who. I like Catholics. Almost as much as beer.

    Peace. I’ll be around later. Never use your real name, James. You’re cuter this way.

    Sean, that makes two of us

    Cats can’t answer, or won’t. What gives? Cat got your cat tongue?

    Your church was just a tad tad corrupt, eh? Needed brother Martins help, it would seem, and a few others.

    Good times noodle salad, yo.

    Peace

    Like

  20. Robert,

    You have been reclining back in the skeptic chair for so long (the most comfy seat in the house) that you have probably forgotten just how much nuance is used in your own apologetic. You haven’t bothered defending your own views (you cant) on their own merits for so long you probably forget. As Tom likes to say, when you guys don’t have something to push back on (tu quoque) the skeptics lawn chair folds in on it self and your left with very little to offer. Which is probably why calvinists have historically done so little to win converts to Christ. That…. or the fact that most calvinists are as lovable as a Bob S shaped rattle snake. Mostly your denomination functions as a type of “intellectual stepping stone” for people who have already been converted by other denominations with more heart and less attitude. In any case the CtC apologetic is hardly incoherent to anyone who is willing to make distinctions and allow for nuance in their theological views. You USUALLY dont have a problem with nuance….. until you apply your selective skeptic card…. WACK

    Like

  21. Andrew,

    You say that you found the “doctrines of grace” coming from a baptist back ground…. do you know of any people who are OPC that were formally NOT a christian from some other denomination? Also, are you familiar with the Thomistic take on predestination?

    Luther VS papacy….

    The concept of apostolic succession is critical to why the papacy and not Luther…

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

    Why the reformation…

    Im not sure I understand the scope of your question. Why arianism? Why the schism of 1054? why Judas? The Church was a mess when Luther began his revolt. The Church needed to reform. The Church DID actually reform with Trent and cleaned up its act….. problem was that by that time there was to much bad blood to reconcile. Bottom line…. Luther was a heretic that is probably in hell seeing as his excommunication was never listed.

    Like

  22. Robt,

    Could be worse. He could attack your psyche.

    I’m resolved to take what I can from papists. Life’s to short, yo.

    So yeah, improvement in Kenneth is noted. He seems to be enjoying his escape out here. Once he starts blogging, then the fun really begins..

    Like

  23. Kenneth,

    You say that you found the “doctrines of grace” coming from a baptist back ground…. do you know of any people who are OPC that were formally NOT a christian from some other denomination? Also, are you familiar with the Thomistic take on predestination?

    I ain’t touching the rest of your words with a ten foot pole. Thankfully, I’m now fully armed OLTS comboxxer, and you can click on my name for my blog. Read (all about) about me and my views to your heart’s content. So that get’s the little matter about me and my history out of the way.

    Let’s go with your argument. We get predestination with Calvin, and finds Calvin, falls in love, BOOM, rest is history. Well, oops, Calvin was a knock-off, just stole from Aquinas.

    What’s and Andrew B to do?

    How that solves anything is beyond me. Let’s just look at it like this. You are here representing Aquinas, whatever the heck he believed. As for me? Luther. And what’s my ace in the hole? I’d link to the PCUSA’s fleshing out of freedom of conscience, but I don’t believe in purgatory (sorry, we’re just not that into you and your church, bud), so it would take another combox statement, and I don’t want to.

    Talk with me at my blog, I’d enjoy it. I’ll write a blog post on your topic du jour. Right now, it’s what we are discussing here. Give me a week, and I’ll give you something you’ll want to fight me on.

    Fully armed and operational.

    Yo yo

    Like

  24. *should read Andrew finds Calvin

    I joke with my pastor, marrying into the opc. was it calvin or my wife i fell in love with?

    don’t answer that.

    oh, and guess what. I’m going here before I’ll join you (queue whiny luke skywalker, I’ll never join you(hey it’s olts man, gotta give you your money’s worth, yo yo yo)

    Like

  25. So, in all that Kenneth, answer this:
    What shall I say to my father in law, opc elder since he was 25 or so, became a Xian out of his RCism after being invited to the opc youth group, at the same church in Santa Barbara my girlfiend took me to 25 years later (and where jack goes now), was married by that pastor, and you are telling me I’m invincibly ignorant?
    No sale. Convice my father in law to revert, you’ll get the whole opc.

    Kidding. But seriously, Donnie. out of your element

    http://www.cpcmb.org

    Look in staff who do you see
    It’s over. No more whack.

    WHACK thyself.

    Yo..

    Like

  26. Kidding only about getting the whole opc. The rest there is my blood.

    Mop this thread up with Darryl. I’ll be at my blog waiting. You know where to find me.

    Heretic my ass

    Like

  27. Im not sure I understand the scope of your question.

    It’s as clear as can be. 1517-1648. Why did that happen?

    Why arianism?

    Pathetic. Grow up.

    Why the schism of 1054?

    The church is fallible.

    why Judas?

    Do you like reading:

    Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.

    The Church was a mess when Luther began his revolt. The Church needed to reform. The Church DID actually reform with Trentwith evacuating indulgences and cleaned up its act…..

    See how easy that was?

    problem was that by that time there was to much bad blood to reconcile. Bottom line…. Luther was a heretic that is probably in hell seeing as his excommunication was never listed.

    Ok, God. But your pope says do good works and i’m in heaven. I’m doing it, comboxing with you.

    neener neener neeeeeeeener >:-)

    ps i like catholics. but i worry about your soul. kenneth winsmann

    peace

    Like

  28. Or how about the PCA blogs, would prefer those over where you have Machenites, you know, friends of Catholics?

    I was reading Robert Strimple’s outstanding article on modern Roman Catholic theology (in the book on Roman Catholicism edited by John Armstrong), and I was faced with a whopping conundrum. That conundrum can be simply phrased: who speaks for Roman Catholicism? For many people, that answer is simple: the magisterium speaks for the church. The problem is that the magisterium is becoming increasingly liberal. One only has to look at the state of Roman Catholic education in the United States to see this. The vast majority of the major voices in American Roman Catholic education are liberal. It is only a matter of time before the Pope is a liberal, and there are some who are claiming that Francis is a liberal.

    It’s the catholic’s turn to speak. We are waiting. Who will stand up for th church that Christ himself founded? Surely there must be someone..

    We
    are
    waiting

    Like

  29. sorry, when someone drops an h-bomb, my finger starts inching towards the nuclear launch key. fortunately, it takes two to turn that switch. i'm just a guy on a smartphone. remember?

    Like

  30. Kenneth Winsmann,

    Seeing no answer, I hereby call you home to a true church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. At the link, you will some suggestions.

    I leave you with the words of Cornelius Van Til (you know, like Martin Luther, one of my fathers in the faith) (no emphasis needed):

    <blockquote cite=""But since I believe in such a God, a God who has conditioned you as well as me, I know that you can to your own satisfaction, by the help of the biologists, the psychologists, the logicians, and the Bible critics reduce everything I have said this afternoon and evening to the circular meanderings of a hopeless authoritarian. Well, my meanderings have, to be sure, been circular; they have made everything turn on God. So now I shall leave you with Him, and with His mercy.

    Like

  31. Then again Kenneth, maybe I’m all wet. I mean, if my golf scores are any indicator..

    If you have time, check out the Isaiah 55 reference in this article. Better yet, read in your Bible. With Barth and Aquinas, all my digital publishings aren’t worthy for the trash bins of heaven. I think Aquinas’ line was about it being less than straw, that’s what Cletus told me. But they are saying the same thing..(emoticon).

    http://andrewbuckingham1.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/conversing-or-golfing/

    Peace from the Hartians,
    Andrew

    Like

  32. Kenneth,

    I generally try not to ignore the facts of history or pretend as if they are irrelevant. I am incredibly skeptical of the Roman Church’s claims, and if you don’t think there are legitimate reasons to be given the way Rome has never been able to be as united as it claims and its sins throughout history, then you aren’t paying attention. You can’t claim infallibility and the pope as the solution to Christian division and then pretend as if things like the Avignon papacy, the conflicting lists of episcopal succession, the fact that Rome played almost no role in most of the earliest councils, and so much more don’t call that into question. You can’t claim to have the same authority as the Apostles but then pretend as if not having the same inspiration is irrelevant.

    You don’t see Darryl’s point and the point of the rest of us. If Rome did not claim infallibility, the skeptic’s case would be far less powerful. The point that you do and offer it as the bromide to solve all problems is what creates Rome’s problem. It’s no accident that the “we’re the infallible church” is not heard so much from Francis and other popes since V2. Too much historical work has been done to make it credible at all.

    And as far as making a positive case for Protestantism, that’s been done for 500 years. If Calvin and Luther aren’t convincing to you, nothing the rest of us could say would be. The fundamental assumptions are too different. You think that there is this body of tradition that no one can identify and that we have no way of holding Rome accountable to it. When Rome defines Scripture and tradition and then points to itself as the infallible answer to all of life’s problems but can’t tell us what tradition is, we are justifiably skeptical. The history of God’s people is full of demagogues who have claimed things for themselves that are unwarranted.

    Like

  33. PS Machen doesn’t want you in the church he founded, either, I don’t think, so scratch that. I fall pretty much in line with that guy. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is take what you learn, and be a missionary in your church. We need your types. Your church needs a lot of reform. Just ask you pope. He’ll tell you what you want to hear.

    Bye for now.

    Like

  34. Yep,straw:

    I adjure you by the living almighty God, and by the faith you have in our order, and by charity that you strictly promise me you will never reveal in my lifetime what I tell you. Everything that I have written seems like straw to me compared to those things that I have seen and have been revealed to me.

    Like

  35. And Barth’s Church Dogmatics would end up on some heavenly floor as a pile of waste paper:

    Karl Barth knew that his theology mattered profoundly. He would not have poured his life into his work had he not held the highest estimation of the importance and truth of what he wrote, taught and believed. But Barth understood that his mortal understanding of the divine truth was proportional. He fathomed that God’s thoughts were not finally the same thing as Barth’s thoughts. He understood that his theology and the truth it captured must be set next to his awareness that even the Church Dogmatics would end up “on some heavenly floor as a pile of waste paper.”

    Peace to you on you journey, bud.

    Like

  36. For posterity (hello Tom), my rant has officially been marked as an example of Tillichian hashtag Rabies Theologorum. Reading public (but present and future) would be advised to exercise caution when determining the accuracy and reliability of statements made while under the influence of Rabies Theologorum

    Like

  37. Kenneth,

    Luther was a heretic that is probably in hell seeing as his excommunication was never listed.

    Luther’s excommunication was never listed? That word makes it sounds like there’s been an accounting mistake. If he was supposed to be excom, but it’s never listed, did he slip by St. Peter.

    Buwahaha. My work here is done. But don’t feel down. Let this be inspirational.

    No more commenting for 2013. See you guys next year..

    Like

  38. If dg is nice, he will fix your slip, Kenneth.

    I will never forget this day. you told me MLs excom wasnt listed.

    Then again, we all know popes err. Even kenwins on occasion.

    Sorry, just let me enjoy it for at least a day.

    Spiking the ball,

    Ab

    Like

  39. Bryan –

    Darryl,

    “I’m still waiting for Bryan to think about this.”

    You can stop waiting. I have already thought about it.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Erik – That was pretty good. Bryan is actually starting to make me laugh with his comments here. Next thing you know he’ll show up with the flat cap turned around.

    Like

  40. Golf paradigm(emphasis is none other than mine):

    Ah, so there it is. The point at last: God is above our debating of theology, online or elsewhere. Wouldn’t that be funny if even if one of us is right, and the other wrong, in such a hypothetical debate on a theological topic, such a person is in fact right, but for all the wrong reasons? God, it may end up in the end, does have a sense of humor.

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

    Like

  41. Andrew,

    Sorry I missed your twenty consecutive posts…. super bowl sunday and all….

    Well, oops, Calvin was a knock-off, just stole from Aquinas.

    Not exactly… he was more of a poor mans Augustine… I just prefer Thomas on grace.

    What shall I say to my father in law

    It is not my job to persuade you or your father. That is the role of the Holy Spirit. There you go again getting all Arminian on me.

    I meant to say his excommunication was never *lifted*… obviously…. Your blog may at some point contain something that I find interesting…. until then…

    Like

  42. Kenneth,

    You wrote:

    It is not my job to persuade you or your father. That is the role of the Holy Spirit. There you go again getting all Arminian on me.

    Feel free to substantiate your arminian charge.

    By the way, you’re acting more appropriate as of late. I like to think Reformed theology is having its affects. It’s the unsubstantiated charges that get to me. To visit my blog was just an invitation, you need not read any more reformed thought (if that’s what mine is) than you want to.

    You don’t blog, do you?

    Peace to you on your journey.

    Like

  43. Robert,

    I generally try not to ignore the facts of history or pretend as if they are irrelevant. I am incredibly skeptical of the Roman Church’s claims, and if you don’t think there are legitimate reasons to be given the way Rome hasONE never been able to be as united as it claims and its sins throughout history, then you aren’t paying attention. You can’t claim infallibility and the pope as the solution to Christian division and then pretend as if things like the TWOAvignon papacy, THREEthe conflicting lists of episcopal succession,FOUR the fact that Rome played almost no role in most of the earliest councils, and so much more don’t call that into question. You can’t claim to have the same authority as the Apostles but then pretend as ifFIVE not having the same inspiration is irrelevant.

    I see you have mastered the art of dumping an endless stream of unsubstantiated assertions. You also generally demand an uneven burden of proof and an uneven burden of acceptance for the RCC cs your own reformed claims which should equally fail your insatiable no-stone-left-unturned-no-nuance-allowed skepticism. These things make for great rhetoric and propoganda but do little for those with intellectual honesty. If apparent contradictions and historical difficulties are a problem then you need to toss out the inerrancy of scripture as well. Watch how this plays out the day you decide to be consistent

    If Rome the bible did not claim infallibility, the skeptic’s case would be far less powerful. The point that you do it does and offer it as the bromide to solve all problems is what creates Rome’s the bibles problem. It’s no accident that the “we’re the infallible church”“innerrancy of scripture” is not heard so much from Francis and other popes since V2 most protestant scholars and “liberal” mainline denominations anymore. Too much historical work has been done to make it credible at all.

    See how easy it is to play that game?

    Calvin and Luther have not only failed to convince me but failed to convince very much of anyone. Lutherans and Calvinists of all stripes are laregely irrelevant to the face of christianity. Pentacostals and charismatics are quickly blending together with baptists and forming a new kind of hybrid denomination that is quickly becoming the norm in the protestant world. With founders as foul and crude as the two you lift up who can blame them? When a flock has a reputation for being as rude, distant, cold, and uncharitable as yours who would want to join besides those looking for an intellectual stepping stone? Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt. The bride is not perfect but she has at least been identified with certainty from the beginning. We continue to grow into all truth while protestants and various other “isms” continue to grow into something different as the centuries go on. You can keep your schism. Keep your dedication to fallen men who have been excommunicated for their views and doctrines. Ill take the Church. Ill take Tradition. Ill take Christ.

    Like

  44. Andrew,

    No I dont blog at all. My wife would kill me. She already hates the amount of time I spend just hanging out in comboxes! It probably is an imprudent use of my time. In any case ive been trying to cut back on my time online ( no more phone posts) and wouldnt want to add to it by starting up my own gig. Plus, im still young (early twenties), in school, and forming my own views and beliefs with a growing fam to take care of! No time to be fully “armed and operational”. Good luck with your blog though! Hope you get a solid following

    Like

  45. .

    My wife would kill me. S

    You have no idea

    PS I’m off work today tending to my wife who is home ill

    You won’t hear from me for a while. This is called the dog house.

    That is, if she ever goes to this webpage..yo

    Like

  46. Early twenties, with a young son (2 months now?) At Darryls blog?

    Carl trueman wrote that this blog is a place to hide your children from.

    Yes, no more phone posting kenloses. Your pastor may need to give you marriage counseling. I’m not sure he’s the best, although, I know experience ain’t everyring. May e the pope could help even me.

    Not. I need some one else. Who could that be, yo?

    Scene.

    Like

  47. Ken, you’re in your young twenties with a family? As a fellow human being – not as a religious opponent – I urge you: go away! Take care of the family, read books, and throw back a few beers with your friends. Don’t put stuff in comboxes that you will second guess and/or be sheepish about later. Like this paragraph:
    ____________
    Calvin and Luther have not only failed to convince me but failed to convince very much of anyone. Lutherans and Calvinists of all stripes are laregely irrelevant to the face of christianity. Pentacostals and charismatics are quickly blending together with baptists and forming a new kind of hybrid denomination that is quickly becoming the norm in the protestant world. With founders as foul and crude as the two you lift up who can blame them? When a flock has a reputation for being as rude, distant, cold, and uncharitable as yours who would want to join besides those looking for an intellectual stepping stone? Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt. The bride is not perfect but she has at least been identified with certainty from the beginning. We continue to grow into all truth while protestants and various other “isms” continue to grow into something different as the centuries go on. You can keep your schism. Keep your dedication to fallen men who have been excommunicated for their views and doctrines. Ill take the Church. Ill take Tradition. Ill take Christ
    __________

    I won’t take the time to rebut this as it will only encourage you. Go live your life. Enjoy your youth. Don’t do stuff like this.

    Like

  48. mike,

    Thanks for your concern! I am looking for a nice healthy balance. These comboxes can help challenge and inspire study in various disciplines and important theological concepts. Its an educational thing for me. The reformed enjoy a nice intellectual pedigree and so I think reformed thought deserves to be considered and challenged. It isn’t my goal to be offensive or write posts that I may be sheepish about later. It is a historical fact that Luther was crude and vulgar. Calvin a cut throat leader with no tolerance for dissent. The number one thing ive learned since frequenting Daryls blog is that reformed people are pretty rude and crass. Look back on all the posts from the past year and tell me you don’t see it. Everyone says “oh dont judge reformed based off of this blog we are the hard ass bad boys who do it on purpose” but this same experience is replicated all over the internet and even from certain pulpits. It seems to be just a core aspect of reformed tradition. Do you deny this?

    Like

  49. Meh, it’s a common riff in RC circles about Luther being rude and crude and such is indicative of heretics and those under the sway of Satan and sin. It would work better, I suppose, if when we opened the paper there wasn’t another story of sexual deviance and RC clergy and religious and the now requisite cover up. Plus, I got RC seminary stories that make Luther look like he was part of a temperance society. You’ll have to sell it somewhere else, Ken.

    Like

  50. Kenneth, you uncovered that Reformed are sinners. Congrats. I read something in Genesis 3 along those lines.

    You know well the internet has a way of aggrivating our sinful tendencies. Nothing much new under the sun, at is says, somewhere or other..

    Peace.

    Like

  51. Ken, to partially respond, this is obviously not a milquetoast forum. It tends toward polemics, but our combox voices are not the same as our real-life voices. This should not surprise you unless you think football players run around their neighborhoods tackling people.

    Then, the purpose of CtC is to poach Reformed Christians. I’m not going to argue about this one because, despite the balderdash about dialogue, it’s a rigidly controlled propaganda machine. So how do you reasonably expect to be received here?

    Then, frankly, you say ridiculous things. Don’t like Luther’s vocabulary? It’s a pimple next to the mountain of RC atrocities.

    And that will end my correspondence with you. If you waste your youth in comboxes, it’s not on my conscience.

    Like

  52. Ken,

    We continue to grow into all truth while protestants and various other “isms” continue to grow into something different as the centuries go on.

    Tell me again how this is happening when even Benedict admits that no one knows what in the heck V2 means since it allows for people to hold contradictory opinions to confess it, that liberals are openly tolerated, and so forth.

    Calvin a cut throat leader with no tolerance for dissent.

    Cut Mr. Calvin some slack, he grew up under the Roman regime where the answer to heresy wasn’t debate but rather murder. Jan Hus ring a bell? The show trial of Luther at Worms?

    Keep your dedication to fallen men who have been excommunicated for their views and doctrines.

    Wait, it’s better to maintain apostolic succession that includes scoundrels who were never excommunicated? Color me confused.

    Ill take the Church. Ill take Tradition. Ill take Christ.

    If you really wanted to be catholic, you’d be a Protestant.

    Calvin and Luther have not only failed to convince me but failed to convince very much of anyone.

    Well if you’re counting heads and include all the nominal believers since the Reformation, then sure. Rome is a bastion of nominally convinced, poorly catechized people. If it makes you feel good to have so many, well, then I’ll give this point to you.

    Meanwhile, Rome has never recovered from the Protestant Reformation.

    Lutherans and Calvinists of all stripes are laregely irrelevant to the face of christianity. Pentacostals and charismatics are quickly blending together with baptists and forming a new kind of hybrid denomination that is quickly becoming the norm in the protestant world.

    Actually, if gross numbers and stats are correct. This “Hybrid denomination” will probably outnumber Roman Catholics in our lifetime. Since you guys are so fond of the numbers game, that must mean Protestantism broadly considered must be correct.

    As far as Lutherans and Calvinists being irrelevant, I’ll grant that a lot of professing Protestants don’t know why they are Protestants. Kinda like Roman Catholicism.

    You also generally demand an uneven burden of proof and an uneven burden of acceptance for the RCC cs your own reformed claims which should equally fail your insatiable no-stone-left-unturned-no-nuance-allowed skepticism. These things make for great rhetoric and propoganda but do little for those with intellectual honesty. If apparent contradictions and historical difficulties are a problem then you need to toss out the inerrancy of scripture as well.

    The trouble is we have so much more historical documentation for Rome than we do for the time that the Bible was written, so the case for apparent contradictions being more than apparent is far greater for Roman Catholicism than it is for Scripture. As far as intellectual honesty, when you guys can admit that the author of Unam Sanctum did not mean what V2 says no salvation outside the church means, then we can talk.

    The selective skepticism charge is bunk. If you guys want to claim that the mass is a miracle, then you better be able to prove it. When Jesus healed people, nobody was going around saying that the healing was imperceptible to the senses.

    The bride is not perfect but she has at least been identified with certainty from the beginning.

    Good one. Which list of Peter’s successors is the right one again? Where’s the evidence for mono episcopacy in Rome prior to the end of the second century? How did the people who lived during the Avignon papacy know which pope was the true one? Wait, they couldn’t could they. That’s why you needed a council to sort it out.

    Like

  53. Sean,

    So, again, Tu quoque? Now I see why Tom doesn’t offer up his religious point of view. It would be so refreshing to see reformed thought defended on its own merits rather than hearing the ol d”yeah but your no better off because….” time and time again.

    Mike,

    Lol waste your youth? you guys…

    Like

  54. Ken, I didn’t give you ‘tu quoque’. I readily hold that RC atrocities so far outpace Luther’s crude language or Calvin’s meanie aristocratic tendencies, that there is no realistic comparison. I saw Luther’s crudeness outdone just within my first year at RC seminary. You drew the participants in the comparison, blame yourself. Maybe it’s a good example, how you aren’t meant for a combox.

    Like

  55. Ken,

    So, again, Tu quoque? Now I see why Tom doesn’t offer up his religious point of view. It would be so refreshing to see reformed thought defended on its own merits rather than hearing the ol d”yeah but your no better off because….” time and time again.

    If you haven’t found Reformed thought defended here and elsewhere on its own merits, then you aren’t paying attention. As far as the tu quoque—When you guys stop making your apologetic argument based on the fact that Rome is more united and more epistemologically certain than Protestantism, you’ll probably see less of the “you’re no better off.” Don’t expect to be able to bemoan Protestant division as the sign that we’re wrong and get away with ignoring the severe troubles in your own camp.

    We can debate which side has more evidence on their side. But if any of us gives an answer to the other based on the fact that the other side has flaws, don’t expect that to work if one’s side has the exact same flaws.

    Like

  56. Ken mocks well-intentioned advice and horribly overestimates his arguments. I bet his normal human spidey senses are also inoperative.

    Like

  57. Kenneth – Thanks for your concern! I am looking for a nice healthy balance.

    Erik – In light of the quote that Mikelmann posted right above that, that is hilarious.

    Here’s Kenneth having a nice healthy balance in musical appreciation:

    Like

  58. Robert – Actually, if gross numbers and stats are correct. This “Hybrid denomination” will probably outnumber Roman Catholics in our lifetime. Since you guys are so fond of the numbers game, that must mean Protestantism broadly considered must be correct.

    Erik – The RCC’s growth as a percentage of world population has been flat to shrinking a bit since Vatican II. Protestants are actually growing faster. Neither is growing as fast as Islam. Bryan Cross actually gave me these numbers last week.

    http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/statusofglobalmission.pdf

    Percentage of world population that is Roman Catholic per Gordon-Conwell:

    1800 – 11.78%
    1900 – 16.46%
    1970 – 17.99%
    Mid-2000 – 17.04%
    Mid-2014 – 16.93%
    2025 – 16.66%

    Meanwhile Islam:

    1800 – 10.01%
    2025 – 33.74%

    Like

  59. Kenneth – So, again, Tu quoque?

    Erik – The Tu quoque doesn’t apply in this case because your charge was against the behavior of certain Protestants and Sean responded with the behavior of certain Catholics. We’re both subject to the same Decalogue. Unless you think putting the label “Catholic” on something excuses bad acts.

    Early 20s is showing.

    Like

  60. Erik,

    “Protestants are actually growing faster”

    Confessional? Or we talking AoG/SDA/Pentecostals.

    And let’s not forget:
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/08/16/6-reasons-why-mormons-are-beating-evangelicals-in-church-growth/

    And (this from a pro-lds sociologist so take with grain of salt):
    “Koltko-Rivera—who has taught more than a dozen statistics courses at NYU—found that Mormon growth slowed after 1990 because the LDS church expanded its missionary efforts into many new areas where missionary work was more difficult, such as the former Soviet Bloc nations, and other countries in Asia and Africa. However, several of these countries now show huge LDS growth. Specifically, Russia saw an 83 percent increase in Mormon membership from the end of 1999 through 2009.
    Koltko-Rivera also found that the slowdown of Mormon growth is about to end. A combination of factors—a forthcoming increase in missionary numbers; improvements in missionary preparation; the recent formation of Mormon “stakes” (dioceses) in places like Russia and India—has set the stage for major Mormon expansion worldwide.”

    Like

  61. Robert,

    Robert,

    Tell me again how this is happening when even Benedict admits that no one knows what in the heck V2 means since it allows for people to hold contradictory opinions to confess it, that liberals are openly tolerated, and so forth.

    V2 was an ambiguous council…. it also gave no new definitions…. so it doesnt really matter how ambiguous it might have been. If V2 is unclear while trying to repeat already established dogma you just fall back to previous definitions that arent ambiguous…. Its really not difficult Rob. The Church grows closer and closer to the truth with every INFALLIBLE definition or condemnation given…. meanwhile…. your micro gatherings splinter divide and mutate under the tyrannical regime of semper reformata with no end in sight.

    Wait, it’s better to maintain apostolic succession that includes scoundrels who were never excommunicated? Color me confused.

    Yes. Much better. Read up on Athanasius.

    As far as Lutherans and Calvinists being irrelevant, I’ll grant that a lot of professing Protestants don’t know why they are Protestants. Kinda like Roman Catholicism.

    Being uncatechized and being a blip on histories radar are two different concepts. Your micro-gathering does not matter to the world. The Church established by Jesus Christ has shaped the world we live in for thousands of years…. see the difference?

    The trouble is we have so much more historical documentation for Rome than we do for the time that the Bible was written, so the case for apparent contradictions being more than apparent is far greater for Roman Catholicism than it is for Scripture

    You have said this before and its still a bad answer on so many levels. Give your reasons to Dan Barker, Ludemann, Ehrman, Carrier, etc. and see how much your lack of “historical documentation” is helpful. The point is that you do not believe in biblial inerrancy because of the brut facts of the text you believe in innerrancy ( at least in the old testament) because Christ considered it to be God breathed and authoritative. You can make that case without appealing to biblical inerrancy and merely appeal to history. If the ressurection is true…. then His claims to divinity are true. If His claims to divinity are true then His teaching is to be trusted and we are to follow His example. But why and how the new testament? This is a different animal all together. A question that you cant answer from the text itself. A question that takes us to Chrch history. We must now consider “core canons”, development of doctrine and trust the orthodoxy of the ECFs….. but then those same fathers speak of bishops in the place of Christ! Apostolic succession, eucharist as sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, etc etc etc. You accept the testimony of these men on canon unquestioningly and yet toss out the rest or alter it as you see fit.

    Biblical innerrancy isnt something that we prove to a skeptic by flipping open the pages of the gospels and reading out loud. We dont read deuteronomy and Philemon or 3 Peter and think WOW! Amazing! This book is definitely inspired by God! No humkan author could have ever even imaginably written something this mind blowing!” Innerrancy and inspiration is a conclusion reached when other theological principles are already brought to the table with us! Principles that are in large part given to us by a historical record that is undeniably more Catholic than not. You are putting the cart before the horse. You want to investigate historical argumentation before examining theological principles. In fact, you want to REFUTE theological principles with debatable historical evidence. This is the same mistake Ehrman and Ludeman make. RCs wont ever be able to prove infalliblilty if you want a definitve answer to any and every historical difficulity or challenge. But why demand that of Rome when you dont demand that of the NIV? You have moved the goal posts friend. I call foul.

    The selective skepticism charge is bunk. If you guys want to claim that the mass is a miracle, then you better be able to prove it. When Jesus healed people, nobody was going around saying that the healing was imperceptible to the senses.

    Is salvation a miracle? An example of divine intervention and the mirculous transformation of sinner to saint? Is this perceptiable to the senses? Besides that the Church has a whole host of AMAZING miracles throughout her history to testify to her truth claims. Thinking of the miracle of the sun or Lourdes France.

    Good one. Which list of Peter’s successors is the right one again? Where’s the evidence for mono episcopacy in Rome prior to the end of the second century? How did the people who lived during the Avignon papacy know which pope was the true one? Wait, they couldn’t could they. That’s why you needed a council to sort it out.

    Another example of you wanting to debate historical difficulties before ironing down theological principles that lead to our historical conclusions. Catholics dont claim infalliblilty because its just soooooo obvious from history. Niether do prots claim biblical inerrancy because its jut soooooo obvious from the texts. Play fair. Let the goal posts stand where they are.

    Like

  62. Yo Kenny,
    Rattlesnake Bub here, at your service and all that jazz.
    Thanks for sharing your interpretation.

    Yeah, I laid it on a bit thick with Bryan, but come on/get serious.
    Byrome darling is over here defending romanism, yet as an ex P&R churchman he still can’t give us a proper exposition of the prot principium cognoscendi/principle of knowing aka Sola Scriptura according to its own terms.

    Like what’s that all about?
    But Bryan doesn’t patronize us in all this?
    A hypocritical paradigm monger can not anywhere anyhow ever be called to accounts on his own terms in the real not Roman world?
    Somebody can lead with their chin and confidently expect that nobody is going to take a pop at the obvious?
    Like just how stupid/naive/supine do you take our sense of discernment to be?
    That being a doormat is what contending for the faith is all about?

    Oops, we forgot. Not that ignorance is the mother of devotion aka fides implicta, but the suppressed premise: the infallible charism operates by ad hoc osmosis on the lay unappointed members of the shadow magisterium just as it does on Crazy Francis, so they feel free to think nobody can question their infallible pronouncements or mock the ridiculous and hypocritical ones. And they gets huffy if they do.

    But the paradigm in operation here is do not answer a fool according to his pear-uh-dime paradigm, lest you become a papal poofter just like him, brainwashed and all ready for Ash Wednesday.

    Just because somebody won’t argue from Scripture, history or reason, but on the basis of the superstition of the Magisterium alone, if not Bryan’s personal performative possession of the apostolic rabbits foot bones, does not mean we have to answer the ridiculous non sequiturs, hypocritical double standards or intellectual buffoonery respectfully, lest we get rated with vipers.

    But if it does, the Roman anti-venom is still worse than the bite.

    Which is to say, if you stay home and don’t ever stray from the CtC reservation, you won’t ever get bit in the first place.

    Which is also, we thinks, good advice for the thin skinned and paradigmatically compromised hypocrites masquerading as intelligent, allbeit infalluble, interpreters of the little papa.

    chears

    Like

  63. Bob,

    You forgot rule number one, and that is ending every post with “In the Peace of Christ” reveals one’s patient and godly nature. Isn’t it obvious? Those who don’t clearly aren’t godly, and their refusal to put up with nonsense just gives more proof of that.

    In the principled paradigm of pretentious papalism,

    Robert

    Like

  64. Yo Rubbert, stop dissing me man and spell my name rite.

    And lay off the ‘in the peace of my phd.’ chap.
    He means well and our resident anti polemicist polemicist is buzzing around again looking for a place, any place to land his Piper Gadfly.

    cheario

    Like

  65. Folks, I owe an apology. Earlier today I put on a display of unseemly compassion to young Ken. Not only was it contrary to decorum but to good sense as well. By way of explanation, my wife is a social worker and sometimes her “stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves” attitude rubs off on me. So for the record I take unequivocal responsibility for my actions while recognizing it’s mostly her fault.

    If a basketball player steps on the floor, he can expect nothing less than full effort from his opponent. He gets no special treatment for limitations in height, quickness, or ability. So if you want to continue to stuff Ken’s attempted shots or posterize him on one of your own, have at it. It’s not our fault CtC sent a commenter from their D-League.

    Like

  66. mike,

    First of all I would own you theology nerds on the court.

    But please keep on with your amazing “posterizing”. Its every Catholics best friend. With a witness like the reformed Catholics don’t even need arguments. I wasn’t saying “Hey you guys should stop picking on me”. I was commenting on how you treat Bryan and how wonderful of a witness that is for the Catholic cause. Keep it up.

    video of myself dunking on old life

    Like

  67. Good luck with your blog though! Hope you get a solid following

    Haha my blog was a joke. It’s gone. Remember the fate of the death star?

    Can’t wait until star wars 7. Tee hee, my children love this kind of stuff. You know, blogging and all.

    Wait till your kids blog on you. Sorry but I need to stop now.

    Go open a blog. Now. Peace.

    Like

  68. http://covenantnurture.wordpress.com/about/

    A few days ago, I blogged on the passing of my little brother. I linked to a book Death in the home, by BM Palmer. It was reblogged by “brad” at the link above.

    Well, I wanted to create a blog that brad has already created. No need for me to reinvent the wheel. This gave me all the reason I needed to retire from my 8 day blogging career. Got a few hits tho. What a computer game this all is..

    Anyway, my point: let the record show..

    If anyone wants me, I’m on Twitter.

    Grace and peace.

    Like

  69. AB
    Posted February 4, 2014 at 7:26 am | Permalink
    KW, you are super cute.

    Bye,
    AB

    AB
    Posted February 4, 2014 at 7:38 am | Permalink
    Good luck with your blog though! Hope you get a solid following

    Haha my blog was a joke. It’s gone. Remember the fate of the death star?

    Can’t wait until star wars 7. Tee hee, my children love this kind of stuff. You know, blogging and all.

    Wait till your kids blog on you. Sorry but I need to stop now.

    Go open a blog. Now. Peace.

    AB
    Posted February 4, 2014 at 7:45 am | Permalink
    http://covenantnurture.wordpress.com/about/

    A few days ago, I blogged on the passing of my little brother. I linked to a book Death in the home, by BM Palmer. It was reblogged by “brad” at the link above.

    Well, I wanted to create a blog that brad has already created. No need for me to reinvent the wheel. This gave me all the reason I needed to retire from my 8 day blogging career. Got a few hits tho. What a computer game this all is..

    Anyway, my point: let the record show..

    If anyone wants me, I’m on Twitter.

    Grace and peace.

    Three signoffs in a row, Mr. Hello-I-Must-be-Going. Captain Spaulding, am I the only one who gets you?

    Your blog was good and sincere. Best you killed it, then. This blog lives on.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s