On the one hand (from a traditionalist Roman Catholic perspective):
If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox communities are sister churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one Church of God. . . . If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must recognize the Anglicans as brothers and sisters in Christ and express this recognition by praying together. . . . If John Paul II is truly a saint, the Catholic faithful must hold that what divides Catholics and Protestants . . . is minimal in comparison to that which unites them. . . . The Catholic faithful must recognize the value of the religious witness of the Jewish people. . . . The Catholic faithful must recognize that after the final resurrection, God will be satisfied with the Moslems and they will be satisfied with Him. . . . Faithful Catholics must recognize that heads of state may not arrogate to themselves the right to prevent the public profession of a false religion.
On the other hand (from a culture wars perspective):
I think the article (quite contrary to its intent) makes a pretty good case for why John Paul II should be canonized: In the West’s MSM narrative, he was a reactionary because he opposed abortion, contraception, and women’s ordination — but the SSPX offers us a helpful reminder of how deep his commitment was to the agenda of Vatican II, to opening the Catholic Church in outreach to other Christians and members of other religions.
Don’t expect Jason and the Callers to weigh in — too many early church fathers to read.
(Thanks to an e-correspondent.)
Old Life 
Darryl,
Disagreement between persons regarding whether JPII should be canonized is fully compatible with the truth of what we’ve said. (If you disagree, feel free to construct an argument showing why such disagreement is incompatible with the truth of what we’ve said.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
You just know Bryan has a hot key or command to paste “____________ is fully compatible with the truth of what we’ve said. (If you disagree, feel free to construct an argument showing why such disagreement is incompatible with the truth of what we’ve said.)” Maybe it’s “ctrl S” for schoolmarm.
LikeLike
Here’s a selection Bryan’s opening, quick-response team comments at OL for the past 30 days:
…fully compatible with the truth of what we’ve said
…there is possibly another paradigm that takes up and [from the perspective of that paradigm] better explains all the data…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…
…because nothing he brings out is incompatible with anything we’ve claimed…
Nothing here demonstrates any cognitive dissonance on our part. In order to do that, you would need to show that we hold two beliefs that don’t fit together. Anyone can *assert* cognitive dissonance between someone else’s beliefs, but that does not show that there is any such cognitive dissonance.
HAL called. He wants his shtick back.
LikeLike
LOL I really enjoy this little game between you and Bryan. The commentary of Chortles is priceless.
Anyways, Im your huckleberry. I think that its false to say that if JP2 is sainted we must accept all of his V2 double speech as dogma. I am convinced that “ecumenism”, in practice, is the art of saying ambiguous and misleading things in an attempt to foster unity. This is a “pastoral program” instituted by V2 that was aggressively pushed onto the faithful under JP2 and that should be dispensed with. However, that doesn’t mean that JP2 isn’t a saint! The man was very pious, loved the lord, showed great devotion to mother Mary, and was quite holy by all appearances. I think a Pope can be sainted despite presiding over a disastrous pontificate.
Still, one cant help but get the feeling that it is actually V2 being sainted and not the two men under consideration….
LikeLike
Ken,
The man was very pious, loved the lord, showed great devotion to mother Mary, and was quite holy by all appearances.
But for the Mariolatry you just described a bunch of the schismatics I hang out with on Sundays (we don’t do Saturday night services, much as it might help soccer families).
LikeLike
Which reminds me — there are tons of similarities between the RC and happening mega- and wanna-be megachurches. Saturday night services, daily on-site opportunities for devotion, loud music (big praise teams instead of big organs), worshiping in splintered affinity groups, range of worship styles, cathedral-sized if not -shaped buildings, images/images/images, social workers, parish nurses, soup kitchens, and political/social activism. Much of American Xianity or more or less Catholic, I think.
LikeLike
Bryan, so tell us, what do you think about JPII’s beatification and SSPXer’s objections to it?
LikeLike
from a traditionalist Roman Catholic perspective)
This is rather undernourished information-wise. The Society of St. Pius X is more than just “a traditionalist Roman Catholic perspective,” its radical revanchism flirts with excommunication.
As for John Paul II being a saint, I don’t believe that means he was perfect. Aquinas is a saint but was wrong about some things.
LikeLike
Bryan, doesn’t know enough to evaluate JPII, Vat II or the SSPXers and more importantly doesn’t have a charism by which to establish his interpretation as anything more than, like, his opinion. He has all the credibility of Scott Hahn’s BT.
LikeLike
Please allow this my last post for 2.17.2014:
Let the record show that I responded to Father Bryan Ochs on CtC at the time indicatd. In case they don’t let me through. Ordained men between RCC and OPC discussing praying to dead people during weddings and funerals:
to be continued (but not today..)
shutting up,
adb
LikeLike
Byran,
Disagreement between persons regarding whether JPII should be canonized…
At the heart of the disagreement is the meaning of Vatican II and how JP II and subsequent Popes must “manage” that meaning in order to maintain the Rome’s unity, which unity becomes only a unity of organization and not doctrinal understanding as exhibited by the disagreement. The point being that the infallible papacy which is supposed to clear up doctrinal confusion is helping to foster that confusion.
LikeLike
I dunno, I think the cat-lickers easy out here is that canonization would not impute infallibility on any more statements made/positions held by JPII than would his simply being pope. (Which in any case is as few as possible, for the sake of future plausible deniability.)
LikeLike
RubeRad
Posted February 17, 2014 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
I dunno, I think the cat-lickers easy out here is that canonization would not impute infallibility on any more statements made/positions held by JPII than would his simply being pope. (Which in any case is as few as possible, for the sake of future plausible deniability.)
Correct. JPII never spoke ex cathedra that I can find.
Jack Miller
Posted February 17, 2014 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
forgot to close the html on Bryan’s quote – hate when I do that…
At the heart of the disagreement is the meaning of Vatican II and how JP II and subsequent Popes must “manage” that meaning in order to maintain the Rome’s unity, which unity becomes only a unity of organization and not doctrinal understanding as exhibited by the disagreement. The point being that the infallible papacy which is supposed to clear up doctrinal confusion is helping to foster that confusion.
For all the talk of “conciliarity” around here, when the popes defer to the Second Vatican Council, you give them the jazz about that too.
You got ’em either way. Well done.
LikeLike
Major Tom (always liked that Bowie song),
For all the talk of “conciliarity” around here, when the popes defer to the Second Vatican Council, you give them the jazz about that too.
It’s not about deferring to Vat II. Rather about JPII tilting toward the traditionalist interpretation for the SSPXers and at the same time toward the more modern CWAGA interpretation for liberal wing. Having it both ways, how can JPII be a SAINT? is the question. My point is that this is just another indication of the political nature of the post Vat II Vatican regarding doctrine when it comes to keeping everyone aboard the Roman ship. Where’s the infallible authoritative voice?
LikeLike
Oh…if only the rest of us poor schlubs could someway, somehow rise to the level of these awesome men (Popes) of God.
But we don’t stand a chance. Unless!…Unless we pray to them so they can ask Jesus to let a little extra (grace) out of the grace-bag and sprinkle it upon us, the faithful and those fervently consumed in prayer.
It’s a bag, alright. A big bag of horse manure.
So extra glad to have (by the grace of God) to have been able to shed all that pious nonsense…and to be able to live by faith, alone, as a full-fledged, self-obsessed idolator. A real sinner. Of the most ungodly variety. Just like every person (apart from Jesus) who has ever been conceived in this fallen world. And that includes any and all Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, etc., etc., etc..
I love that Luther would purposely release a loud belch every once in a while in the middle of his sermons. Just to show the other sinners in the pews that he was just as they were.
LikeLike
tVd and Rube, well, either way — either JPII or Vatican II — someone is doing something different from the older magisterium. So whom do we believe?
Can you say Harry Emerson Fosdick? Sure you can.
LikeLike
Steve,
Where do you stand on the Third Use of the Law?
I’m one of the biggest Reformed libertines here but you sometimes give even me the willies.
Do you find yourself in the mainstream of your church or do people question you? Do you encounter Lutheran pietism?
Not being a smart-aleck. Serious questions.
LikeLike
Tom,
The point of constantly bringing up Vatican II is to cast doubt on the assertion that Rome does not change. If it looks like change and smells like change, it might be change.
Why would a church with an infallible head ever need to open itself up and let in some fresh air? That infallible charism should have kept things on track without any need for major course corrections –unless prior popes had somehow erred. And if they erred, reconcile error with infallibility for us.
LikeLike
Tom,
And discuss the wisdom of the 1960s as an opportune time for a course correction. In retrospect the 60s were groovy and all, but probably not the best time for developing norms for the future of a 2,000 year old church. Or maybe you look to the 70s as the ideal period for clothing and are busting out your bell-bottoms to call on clients today.
LikeLike
Erik,
I stand with Luther (ref. Heidelberg Disputation ) and others such as Forde, Paulsen and many more Lutherans through the years that see the “3rd use” as superfluous (the guide is already there in the first two uses) and dangerous as it lets the fox back into the henhouse.
We see “Christ as the end of the law”…not the law as the end of Christ.
This is pretty good by Paulson:
Click to access 21-3_Paulson.pdf
Yes, many “3rd use” Lutherans view themselves , only as the only true Lutherans…but this was fought over right from the git-go of Lutheranism.
They, our LCMS brethren, are the almost free Lutherans. But we aren’t playing horseshoes. Close doesn’t quite cut it.
Off to work.
Thanks, Erik.
LikeLike
Proof that the problems of the OL commenting community and the nation do not always track together: The horror of a national clown shortage — not a problem in these parts.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/exclusive-national-clown-shortage-approaching-article-1.1616801
LikeLike
Thanks, Steve. I’ll check that article out.
LikeLike
Steve & CW,
The difficulty in the Reformed (and maybe Lutheran) world is learning to tell the difference between people who are earnest defenders of the Law of God and people who are just a**holes, using their supposed defense of the Law of God as a cover for their essential a**holeness.
It’s usually not that difficult, though.
LikeLike
Does anyone else get the impression that for the past ten years or so the charism of infallibility has bypassed the Vatican and resided upon Bryan Cross?
LikeLike
I don’t know about infallibility, but I think there is a very good chance that Bryan is more of a Catholic fundamentalist than the current Pope. Bryan will defend what the Pope does, of course, but if any of us had suggested the kind of things that Francis has suggested, Bryan would most likely have rebuked us for misrepresenting the Roman Catholic paradigm.
At a minimum there is no way Bryan and his flat cap are making the cover of Rolling Stone or being named Man of the Year by an LGBT publication.
LikeLike
Erik, to tag on — especially when we are told that Rome has it all over us with unity, coherence, and papal supremacy. If it turns out the papacy is just a wax nose that the left, right, traditionalists, and liberals can mold to their liking, all it shows is an overly high attachment to a particular bishop who has little going for him beyond — wait for it — the aura of the Roman Empire, the one that killed the alleged first pope. I guess that gives coherence. But at least an overly high attachment to the Bible will keep you on the straight and narrow in ways papalists never imagine. Just look at Greg careening around here, trying to make us heel. Does Francis ever do that with Jason or Bryan? Not so much.
LikeLike
almost every RC in my life relies on going to heaven because they were baptised, and they put zero thought or action into religious matters other than trying to live a decent life
why expect Bryan to find an honest balance in his mind and soul?
LikeLike
Steve, do agree with these words of Martin Luther?
“God doesn’t need your good works but your neighbor does.”
Fruit of faith therein be showing
That thou art to others loving;
To thy neighbor thou wilt do
As God in love hath done to you. (Luther)
In a word, the third use of the law.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Did you run into Eva Moskowitz at Johns Hopkins? History Ph.D.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304434104579382993628994458
LikeLike
D.G. – Just look at Greg careening around here, trying to make us heel
Erik – Pope Francis is concerned about “Monster Makers” in his church. Rome ain’t seen a monster maker anything like a Presbyterian on a mission. We have world-class monster makers.
LikeLike
And the Westminster (probably due to Puritan influence) is a way better Monster-Making document than the Three Forms. I have not yet met a Three-Forms based Monster-Maker, although I imagine I will come across one sooner or later. The Dutch temperament may not be as conducive to monster-making as the Scotch-Irish.
LikeLike
And British.
LikeLike
Erik, re: 3FU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzG_J7RCGS0
LikeLike
Oh?
LikeLike
Ah, ok. So good monsters, huh, Erik.
Got it. Nevermind. As you were.
Lates homeys.
LikeLike
Erik, I did. I have not seen her in 25 years. I didn’t know this side of her.
LikeLike
Steve, it must be another Luther with whom you stand. The one with whom I’m familiar said this of the law:
“…as long as we live in a flesh that is not free of sin, so long as the Law keeps coming back and performing its function, more on one person and less in another, not to harm but to save. This discipline of the Law is the daily mortification of the flesh, the reason, and our powers and the renewal of our mind (2 Cor 4:16)…There is still need for a custodian to discipline and torment the flesh, that powerful jackass, so that by this discipline sins may be diminished and the way prepared for Christ.”
“Thus, we have the Ten Commandments, a compend of divine doctrine, as to what we are to do in order that our whole life may be pleasing to God, and the true fountain and channel from and in which everything must arise and flow that is to be a good work, so that outside the Ten Commandments, no work or thing can be good or pleasing to God, however great or precious it be in the yes of the world.”
“The matter of the Law must be considered carefully, both as to what and as how we ought to think about the Law; otherwise we shall either reject it altogether, after the fashion of the fanatical spirits who prompted the peasant’s revolt a decade ago by saying that the freedom of the Gospel absolves men from all laws, or we shall attribute to the law the power to justify. Both groups sin against the Law: those on the right, who want to be justified through the Law, and those on the left, who want to be altogether free of the Law. Therefore we must travel the royal road, so that we neither reject the law altogether not attribute more to it than we should.”
LikeLike
Erik: And the Westminster (probably due to Puritan influence) is a way better Monster-Making document than the Three Forms. I have not yet met a Three-Forms based Monster-Maker,
We have at least one or two that show up to mouth off infrequently….
Our 3FU history up here is based mostly on farmers, they have their special edges in thinking but are stark realists on the way the planet turns…
LikeLike
Kent,
We have a church member who is the son of a Canadian farmer. One of the most pleasant guys I know.
Zrim,
“that powerful jackass”
Any time a theologian can use the word “jackass” in his work, I’m in favor of his writing.
LikeLike
I think the specificity of sins in the Westminster Longer may be too much fodder for P & R monster makers. They focus on others with a laser beam regarding the sins that they don’t think they have while ignoring the ones that they do have, using the Westminster as a weapon to beat senseless anyone who comes into their path. Then they wonder why they’re on their 4th church with about 12 members in it.
LikeLike
Maybe the nationalities backing the WCF are more feisty and argumentative than those backing the 3FU?
LikeLike
I’m still struggling to picture the CtC persona in the local RC parish. I already know it doesn’t exist, but now I’m trying to imagine it. My parents have a group of about 12 mostly elderly couples and a few priests and one young closeted gay man, who all go to mass together, some daily, and also get together for sunday brunch and most every holiday. I keep trying to shoehorn Cross into this group or any, for that matter, and I just can’t find a place for him. Even the eye-rolling wouldn’t be near as charitable as OL’s. They’d probably all agree that RC is superior to protestantism and that’s about where it would end. WASPy, fundy converts to RC is just really strange. He might have some traction with my mom, right up to the point where he questioned/corrected some of her reasoning for being RC or dared to explain to her a better understanding of her faith and then he’d need to run for it.
LikeLike
Sean,
I frequented 5 parishes in Houston over the last few years (looking for a suitable parish to go through RCIA) and found “CtC personas” at every one of them. It wasn’t difficult. B16 did more good than he is given credit for. Your experience at the height of the crises is really not all that relevant anymore these days. Healing has begun.
LikeLike
Kenneth, I might give creedence to your analysis if these were ‘victims of the crises’ but my mom still complains that the mass isn’t in Latin anymore. IOW, they’re Baltimore catechism types. I don’t find WASP at RC parishes and certainly not fundies. I doubt the veracity of the ‘CtC personas’ you think you found. Maybe in your very selective FSSP, which isn’t anywhere near the center, you find a few.
LikeLike
Sean: I keep trying to shoehorn Cross into this group or any, for that matter, and I just can’t find a place for him.
The Bryans of the world thrive only through the power to fail a student for merely disagreeing with their viewpoint. It becomes sad when the teacher thinks that 100% of his students nodding enthusiastically proves he has a valid point.
Otherwise he has no pull in any other conversations.
LikeLike
Kent,
The nature of the Dutch community probably has a lot to do with it. When you are in a Dutch church in a Dutch community there is a lot of pressure to fit in, get along, and keep the peace. A lot of people are related, do business together, etc. Even the Consistory, on which elders serve for terms as opposed to life, is pretty egalitarian as far as everyone getting their chance to serve.
Meanwhile the guy who just picks up “Calvinism” on the internet and maybe gets turned on to Bahnsen is groomed to be an oddball church of one from the get go.
LikeLike
Sean,
Your parents group actually sounds pretty nice. Hopefully there’s some Bloody Marys being consumed at those brunches and some good stories being swapped.
LikeLike
Sean,
Still, to say “such people do not exist because grandma says so” is not compelling.
LikeLike
Erik: When you are in a Dutch church in a Dutch community there is a lot of pressure to fit in, get along, and keep the peace.
You mean little things like use the brain you were given, work hard at your vocation, not make a jerk out of yourself every day?
I’m doing my best to implement those 3… honestly…
LikeLike
Kenneth,
That’s a start. Very practical people, The Dutch…
LikeLike
Kenneth, in a communion where cultural accrual far outpaces catechism, it matters quite a bit. And it’s my ma and pa, and I still have all my cradle training to lean on for my assessment. Actually, I quite get along with their group. It’s a regular lovefest. Still can’t locate Criss Cross. I think it’s an internet mirage.
LikeLike
Kenloser, it’s compelling to me. Fits my truth.
LikeLike
DG and Sean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCq2T7zclXY
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 18, 2014 at 6:13 am | Permalink
tVd and Rube, well, either way — either JPII or Vatican II — someone is doing something different from the older magisterium.
“Something different” is vague to the point of being meaninglessness, Darryl.
As for the Society of St. Pius X, they’re a fringe group with no more relevance than your own church of only 30,000. No offense. You may answer Whose Calvinism is it anyway, with “we are!”, but Catholicism isn’t SSPX’s.
Jack Miller
Posted February 17, 2014 at 9:25 pm | Permalink
Major Tom (always liked that Bowie song),
>>>>For all the talk of “conciliarity” around here, when the popes defer to the Second Vatican Council, you give them the jazz about that too.
It’s not about deferring to Vat II. Rather about JPII tilting toward the traditionalist interpretation for the SSPXers and at the same time toward the more modern CWAGA interpretation for liberal wing. Having it both ways, how can JPII be a SAINT? is the question. My point is that this is just another indication of the political nature of the post Vat II Vatican regarding doctrine when it comes to keeping everyone aboard the Roman ship. Where’s the infallible authoritative voice?
Again, Jack you nail ’em whether they speak or not. Nice racket.
But the theology is that Councils are magisterial too, not just the pope giving theological orders all the time. This should meet with your approval, not condemnation.
As for there being politics in the church–any church for that matter–say it ain’t so!
As for the SSPXers, I’m confident in asserting that the Catholic Church’s enemies such as Dr. Hart care what they say a lot more than Catholics do. [Sort of how I see liberals and anti-GOPers care much more about Pat Buchanan’s The [anti-]American Conservative website and magazine than actual conservatives do.]
LikeLike
Tom – not just the pope giving theological orders all the time
Erik – What’s wrong with that? Are Councils infallible?
LikeLike
Tom,
How many parties can be Magisterial before your Magisterium is more confusing than it is authoritative?
You seem to have a double standard in evaluating evidence because of your apparent soft spot for Catholicism (thanks, mom).
LikeLike
Tom loves and respects the Catholic Church so much that he would almost kinda sorta consider going to Mass sometime. Maybe.
How can you ignore a powerful apologetic like that?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 18, 2014 at 6:17 pm | Permalink
Tom – not just the pope giving theological orders all the time
Erik – What’s wrong with that? Are Councils infallible?
If the Holy Spirit is at work in the magisterium–and they claim it is–it’s necessarily in the theology that the pope or council can be infallible. But I don’t believe they claim that they are always infallible, which is why the constant Old Life insistence that they do is rather nauseating.
Erik Charter
Posted February 18, 2014 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
Tom,
How many parties can be Magisterial before your Magisterium is more confusing than it is authoritative?
You seem to have a double standard in evaluating evidence because of your apparent soft spot for Catholicism (thanks, mom).
Well, the Protestant alternative to magisterium is schism, so that’s no improvement.
As for my bent toward apologetics, I’ve been known to stand up for fundamentalists, even Calvinists, when nobody else will. That’s why I study you, to tell your story correctly. That and the fact that theological liberals are boring. All you have to do is watch Barney & Friends to get the gist of it.
;-P
LikeLike
tvd, we always insist on it, because they always fall back on it as the ultimate line of demarcation. And as someone has adroitly pointed out; it has all the reasonableness of water being wet sometimes in some places(paraphr). Actually, we’ve broken them of infallibility as a practical,ordinary, and characteristic and reduced them to principled OPPORTUNITY. Awesome, wake me when they break it out.
LikeLike
tvd,
on fringe groups — said like a good liberal.
LikeLike
tVd, “schism”? Now you’re using ecclesiastical and theological terms?
Love Erik and Jack.
LikeLike
Tom,
The problem you have as a baptized Catholic talking to us is that we know you don’t believe it yourself. You’re in big trouble as a lapsed Catholic. You’re not attending Mass, not receiving communion, not making confession, not doing penance, and not receiving indulgences. You’re probably in bigger trouble than those of us who weren’t baptized into the Church.
Why would we take the Church’s claims any more serious than you?
At least there’s a chance that we might be in the right place in our “schismatic” groups because we’ve actually bought in whole hog.
“Schism” also only makes sense if the group you split off from is true, which is problematic for you because the truth of that group is what you need to prove. You’re begging the question by even using the term to describe us.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 18, 2014 at 8:53 pm | Permalink
tVd, “schism”? Now you’re using ecclesiastical and theological terms?
Love Erik and Jack.
“Schism” is a historical fact, and a historical term.* “The Great Schism.” Ask a historian, if you know any.
Erik Charter
Posted February 18, 2014 at 9:07 pm | Permalink
Tom,
At least there’s a chance that we might be in the right place in our “schismatic” groups because we’ve actually bought in whole hog.
“Schism” also only makes sense if the group you split off from is true, which is problematic for you because the truth of that group is what you need to prove. You’re begging the question by even using the term to describe us.
You can pick another word if you think it helps you hide the truth any better. ;-P Which word would you prefer, Erik? Do you guys want to take a vote and get back to me?
But what is interesting, outside Darryl’s silly word games, is the observation that in Protestantism it’s always the “conservatives” who do the schisming, and leave the liberals to their error. Semper reformanda–although I’m not sure where they find that concept in their Bible.
[And of course the sophistry that if the Catholic church reforms, it’s inconsistent with the idea of magisterium. I’m always amazed at people who expect the other guys to stand still so you can pick them off. Like the Germans in all those WWII movies, obligingly standing up straight so the Americans could shoot them.]
Look, now that you have your “parent” churches going gay, Church of Scotland, PCUSA, if anybody asks whose Calvinism is it anyway?, I’d love to say yours, although historically speaking, you’re like the SSPX. The only difference is, as Catholics, SSPX could not cross the line to actual schism. On some level they still must recognize the authority of the pope and the magisterium. [From what I’ve read, they’ve backed off a bit, and the pope has given them some slack.]
_________
*Pardon our Wiki: “Presbyterian scholar James I. McCord (quoted with approval by the Episcopalian bishop of Virginia Peter Lee) drew a distinction between them, teaching: “If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.”
It’s tough for the historian to go around calling people “heretics,” as in common usage it implies that the other side is right, or that you’re kinda nuts. I’ll call you Old Lifers heretics if you want, but my heart won’t be in it. Since your parent churches are going gay, it seems to me you’re the Biblical ones, but in non-magisterial Christianity, the Bible is of course whatever the majority says it is, and you ain’t it.
LikeLike
Tom,
“Schism” is fine with me as long as you conceed it’s not automatically pejorative.
If I’m running around with a group that listens exclusively to Justin Bieber music and decide to leave I have created a “schism”. So what?
LikeLike
Some more importance as to the ‘cultural’ appraisal of RC. Listen up oh, prot-catholics, I’ll lead you into the politics behind the charism;
“Francis called the synod late last year and took the unusual step of commissioning surveys from bishops conferences around the world to ask ordinary Catholics about how they understand and practice church teaching on marriage, sex and other issues related to the family.
The results, at least those reported by bishops in Europe and the United States, have been an eye-opener: The church’s core teachings on sexual morals, birth control, homosexuality, marriage and divorce were rejected as unrealistic and outdated by the vast majority of Catholics, who nevertheless said they were active in parish life and considered their faith vitally important.”
“German Cardinal Walter Kasper has been tasked with delivering an opening speech to the group on Thursday — an indication that the cardinals and pope will get an unfiltered view of this reality when it comes up for discussion this week.
Germany’s bishops delivered some of the most startlingly blunt results from the survey, saying: “The church’s statements on premarital sexual relations, on homosexuality, on those divorced and remarried and on birth control … are virtually never accepted, or are expressly rejected in the vast majority of cases.”
Francis greatly admires Kasper, who was the Vatican’s chief ecumenical officer for nearly a decade. During his first Sunday noon blessing as pope, Francis praised Kasper by name, saying he was a terrific theologian who had just written a great book on mercy.”
“In his different careers as theologian, bishop and Vatican official, Cardinal Kasper sometimes offered opinions at variance with predominant Vatican thinking on sensitive church issues.
Cardinal Kasper and another respected German theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, engaged in a lively public debate in 2001 over the roles of the local church and the universal church.
In an unusual move for two top Vatican officials, the respectful, but sharp debate was conducted in the pages of scholarly magazines and at conferences where one or the other spoke.
Cardinal Kasper opposed what he called a “one-sided emphasis” on the universal church and a corresponding decline in the authority of local bishops around the world.
Cardinal Ratzinger argued that one could not deny the primacy of the universal church over the local church, especially because the church is a reality that transcends geographical limits.
The 2001 debate was not the first time the two presented well-reasoned arguments on different sides of a church issue.
In 1993, Cardinal Kasper was one of three German bishops who allowed divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion as long as they believed in conscience that their first marriage was invalid.
The policy in Germany was changed a year later at the Vatican’s request, but Cardinal Kasper said at the time that the question still needed pastoral and theological attention.
Not long after being named secretary of the Christian unity office in 1999, Cardinal Kasper publicly criticized a Vatican document signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, whom Cardinal Kasper has known for some 40 years.
In a series of public appearances in Germany, Cardinal Kasper said the document, “Dominus Iesus,” a declaration that said Protestant communities were not, properly speaking, “churches,” lacked sensitivity and was “too brief” in describing the relations between the Catholic Church and other Christian communities.
At the same time, the ecumenist made it clear his complaints were with the document’s tone, not its content, which he said “correctly rejects” attitudes downplaying the need for truth in dialogue.
His outspokenness on sensitive issues has attracted repeated German media attempts to pin him down on the ideological spectrum, but he told reporters in 1999 that he rejects the “conservative versus progressive” schema.
“The current crisis (in the church) is primarily a crisis of faith. Concern for preservation of the faith may mark one as a conservative, but I am convinced that one can only conserve what one simultaneously renews,” he said.
“One must renew one’s personal faith, but also the structures”
Oh prot-catholics, Ratzinger’s legacy is truly going to be erased and quickly. Kasper also served as assistant to Kung at Tubingen. Get a whiff, Criss Cross. You don’t know my people very well. Pew practice is a sumb*%$#
LikeLike
Tom – But what is interesting, outside Darryl’s silly word games, is the observation that in Protestantism it’s always the “conservatives” who do the schisming, and leave the liberals to their error.
Erik – How is this not true in society as well? Things Fall Apart, people become less faithful, renewal is needed. It’s the way the world works when sin is present. You know this as a Conservative.
Why America? Why didn’t people just stay in Europe & England and reform them?
LikeLike
Tom – And of course the sophistry that if the Catholic church reforms, it’s inconsistent with the idea of magisterium.
Erik – It’s inconsistent with the idea of an infallible head that supposedly makes Catholicism superior to Protestantism. Why would reform be needed unless the infallible head was asleep at the wheel? Something has to give, either infallibility or reform.
LikeLike
Tom – Since your parent churches are going gay, it seems to me you’re the Biblical ones, but in non-magisterial Christianity, the Bible is of course whatever the majority says it is, and you ain’t it.
Erik – If you’re impressed with majorites, why Christianity at all? There are more non-Christians than Christians in the world.
And if we believe what our “parent churches” believed before they “went gay” why aren’t they the ones that committed schism and not us?
LikeLike
Tom – in non-magisterial Christianity, the Bible is of course whatever the majority says it is, and you ain’t it.
Erik – This is one thing I don’t get about you. The Bible is a text, Read it. Form an opinion. You might actually form a correct opinion.
You act as if there is no “final word” to set everyone straight that there can be no beneficial knowledge gained by a reader. You’re like the Callers on steroids.
Mrs. Tom: “Let’s go out to eat”
Tom: “No – can’t do it.”
Mrs. Tom – “Why not?”
Tom – “There are so many restaurants in L.A. and no infallible interpreter to tell us which one to go to. I could get food poisoning, get overcharged, or regret that I didn’t eat at the best place.”
Mrs. Tom – “O.K., I’m going with a friend. See you later.”
Tom: [grumbles and returns to blogging]
LikeLike
Tom,
If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy.
Then logically on that basis, a completely heretical church is preferable to a doctrinally pure schism??
The schism condemned in Scripture is that which departs from the doctrine of the faith handed down, not that of some organizational structure of the church. Those that depart from the apostolic faith are those who are schismatic. Thus the judgment of the reformed churches that at Trent Rome departed from the faith once delivered. And so the unity of Christ’s body is unattainable apart from adhering to Christ’s true faith. To argue for Rome’s claim on some basis of history or succession ignores the very gospel that brings salvation and actually establishes and maintains the church.
LikeLike
Sean,
Oh prot-catholics, Ratzinger’s legacy is truly going to be erased and quickly. Kasper also served as assistant to Kung at Tubingen. Get a whiff, Criss Cross. You don’t know my people very well. Pew practice is a sumb*%$#
C’mon man, haven’t you learned that nothing the present Magisterium can say or do is inconsistent with what Bryan and the Callers have said. Bryan said so.
LikeLike
tvd, you are a typical liberal. You export theological language and call it fact, but then disapprove of believers who use theological categories. You are Obama. I am the Little Sisters. Love me.
And listen to your people:
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act. In this etymological and full meaning the term occurs in the books of the New Testament. By this name St. Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12): “I beseech you, brethren”, he writes, “. . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment” (ibid., i, 10). The union of the faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members which God hath tempered “that there might be no schism in the body” (1 Corinthians 12:25). Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. “Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, “there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe” (On Faith and the Creed 9). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.
LikeLike
sean, all that audacity, so little adherence.
LikeLike
In my mind we can have two potentially profitable and interesting conversations here with Catholics and the Catholic friendly:
(1) Discussions about history and how history might shed light on the truth or falsehood of Catholicism
(2) Discussions about Scripture and how Scripture accords or diverges from Catholic theology and practice.
Tough to find Catholics or the Catholic friendly to discuss either of those, though.
Regarding history, I would like to see some Catholics address the fact that the growth and longevity of Catholicism can largely be explained by its affiliation with the Roman Empire and its reliance on coercion and force in maintaining its monopoly. This worked for 1,000 years — until it didn’t.
LikeLike
Looking at what’s NOT “divine revelation”:
http://reformation500.com/2014/02/19/divine-revelation-in-roman-catholic-and-protestant-polemical-discussions-part-2/
LikeLike
Erik, for purposes of discussion with the lockstep CtC apologetic which bears no resemblance to actual RCC, there’s going to be another relevant discussion. And that is going to be paying attention to how pastoral application makes mince meat of dogma. For instance, on the sexual mores ‘dogma’, I’m willing to bet Francis’ doesn’t change dogma but allows for divorced and otherwise compromised RC to receive communion. The channel for it will be mercy and latitude given to individual bishops and priests to exercise pastoral care in showing mercy to their flock. It will further be justified in ‘keeping up’ with the the ‘movement of God’ among His people-pew practice. The ‘truth-seeking’ of the CtC apologetic is no more than a capitulation to the air-tight philosophical circle that allows Bryan to sleep at night. It neither explains the reality on the ground nor illuminates the manner in which the RCC determines it faith and practice.
LikeLike
Erik, and let’s ban hand waving, as in “development of doctrine.”
LikeLike
sean, plus, if Francis wanted to be merciful — I am repeating myself — why not talk up the sacraments for the lapsed as a way of reentry into good standing? How pastoral is that?
LikeLike
Darryl, I’m sure that will be part of the explanation. In fact, in the America piece, he already laid the groundwork for that application and that at the expense of the restorationist and legalist insistence.
LikeLike
Sean & D.G.,
The whole issue of Catholic doctrine and sex is a fascinating one. Reading Johnson on Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine one realizes the bad start the Church got off to on the subject. There really is a long history of regarding sex as more of a necessary evil than a gift of God in the Church. Maybe one of the reasons the Church is having to conduct surveys and potentially rethink sex in 2014 is they’ve been off base on the issue for centuries.
LikeLike
Sean, there’s more. The bishops are divide about gays:
LikeLike
Sean, and then there is this:
Why don’t Jason and the Callers ever talk about sex?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Why don’t Jason and the Callers ever talk about sex?
Probably because they think the RC view is that sex is an inherent good, thereby showing how Protestant they are still trying to be.
LikeLike
Darryl, probably because they got the plumbing fixed before they converted. Oops. Oh well. It’s like how they parlay their skill set into the field of lay charism that only officially exists because of Vat II. Lots of convenience goes on in the CtC world. However, I have a plan; since vocations are down and the homosexuals have more opportunities in larger society and the Irish, Poles, Spanish and even Germans are tired of replenishing the ranks, I think, in a gesture of good faith and sincerity, the WASPy, fundy, converts should start pledging their oldest male child or even their youngest to the church. There’s a good reason training can start as early as 13. I want to see these guys start making up the deficit. Otherwise, I call BS on their sincerity. It’s all good and right and dogma/discipline until it’s you.
LikeLike
Sean,
Taylor Marshall’s walking the talk:
http://taylormarshall.com/2013/06/photos-of-our-new-baby-elizabeth.html
Not sure about the others.
At 42 if I told my wife that she needed to convert to Catholicism and birth control is now off limits it’s only a question of which couch I would be perpetually sleeping on for the next decade — one in my familial residence or outside my familial residence.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 19, 2014 at 6:18 am | Permalink
tvd, you are a typical liberal. You export theological language and call it fact, but then disapprove of believers who use theological categories. You are Obama. I am the Little Sisters. Love me.
And listen to your people:
Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act. In this etymological and full meaning the term occurs in the books of the New Testament. By this name St. Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12): “I beseech you, brethren”, he writes, “. . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment” (ibid., i, 10). The union of the faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members which God hath tempered “that there might be no schism in the body” (1 Corinthians 12:25). Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. “Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, “there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe” (On Faith and the Creed 9). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.
Darryl, do you think your flock is buying your word games? [I don’t.]
_________
Jack Miller
Posted February 18, 2014 at 11:40 pm | Permalink
Tom,
If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy.
Then logically on that basis, a completely heretical church is preferable to a doctrinally pure schism??
I dunno, Jack. I was quoting a Presbyterian there. This one’s all yours.
Erik Charter
Posted February 18, 2014 at 10:33 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“Schism” is fine with me as long as you conceed it’s not automatically pejorative.
If I’m running around with a group that listens exclusively to Justin Bieber music and decide to leave I have created a “schism”. So what?
I don’t use it that way. As prev noted, I’m more with Machen than I am with the liberals who control the majority of Presbyterianism now. And it’s a historical fact that in Protestantism, it’s always the “conservatives” who leave. Interesting, perhaps even probative.
LikeLike
Sean,
Problem with that idea is that not all of the wives convert. Lord willing the holdouts will stay strong.
BTW, I thought it was that a RC could marry a non-RC as long as the non-RC agreed to have the children raised in the RC Church. Do converts get special dispensation on this? IE, does the rule not apply after the fact, if you know what I’m asking.
LikeLike
Tom,
And it’s a historical fact that in Protestantism, it’s always the “conservatives” who leave. Interesting, perhaps even probative.
Sounds like the Reformation.
LikeLike
Erik, I’ll wait till he pledges one of them. Doug Phillips had eight and was very anti-catholic.
Robert, in order to get married in the church the unconverted spouse had to agree to raise the children in the faith, this is generally the dispensation. If both partners are baptized, it’s sacramental by default, just like you are unwittingly united with the pope. I’m not sure about the contraception issue. I guess it’s possible that part of the dispensation to be married by a priest, for example, was that the unconverted party agreed to the contraceptive practice outlined by the church. In the case of the prot-catholics with the unconverted spouse, I’m sure there is no discipline being exercised against the convert for their spouse’s unwillingness to comply. At the very least, they have a ‘natural’ marriage if not a sacramental one. Invincible ignorance covers a multitude of sins.
LikeLike
Tom,
O.K. So schism isn’t necessarily bad and you like Machen. Where do we mail your OPC membership card? Report to services this Sunday.
LikeLike
What type of sin are those Catholics who ignore the church’s teaching on artificial birth control committing?
I do appreciate their stance on abortion as well as on any form of birth control that damages an embryo. Protestants probably need to be more informed about how these different methods actually work. Things like in vitro fertilization where embryos are destroyed also need to be looked critically. Sex in marriage is a good thing, but sexual freedom needs to be practiced with care.
One of the marks of rabid secularists is sexual freedom and sexual expression trumps all. It appears to be their highest good. Abortion is practically a sacrament. Homosexual sex is especially virtuous. It’s all very weird. Where do secularists almost all donate their books? Planned Parenthood – – practically a secularist church.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 19, 2014 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
Tom,
O.K. So schism isn’t necessarily bad and you like Machen. Where do we mail your OPC membership card? Report to services this Sunday.
I dunno. I find it hard to trust any church under 1000 years old.
Actually, all your attacks on Catholicism are a great advertisement for the Eastern Orthodox…
http://orthodoxbridge.com/a-protestant-exodus-my-response-to-peter-leithart/
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 19, 2014 at 5:50 pm | Permalink
What type of sin are those Catholics who ignore the church’s teaching on artificial birth control committing?
I do appreciate their stance on abortion as well as on any form of birth control that damages an embryo. Protestants probably need to be more informed about how these different methods actually work. Things like in vitro fertilization where embryos are destroyed also need to be looked critically. Sex in marriage is a good thing, but sexual freedom needs to be practiced with care.
One of the marks of rabid secularists is sexual freedom and sexual expression trumps all. It appears to be their highest good. Abortion is practically a sacrament. Homosexual sex is especially virtuous. It’s all very weird. Where do secularists almost all donate their books? Planned Parenthood – – practically a secularist church.
I think you’ll enjoy this–it’s not particularly Catholic, and indeed an evangelical pal of mine emailed me the link.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
LikeLike
Tom,
I dunno, Jack. I was quoting a Presbyterian there. This one’s all yours.
Use the witness as evidence to make your case, then plead ignorance as to what he means, and then claim he is a witness for the other side. Ahh, “intellectual integrity.” I like that in an intellectual…
LikeLike
Jack Miller
Posted February 19, 2014 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
Tom,
“I dunno, Jack. I was quoting a Presbyterian there. This one’s all yours.”
Use the witness as evidence to make your case, then plead ignorance as to what he means, and then claim he is a witness for the other side. Ahh, “intellectual integrity.” I like that in an intellectual…
I was being sympathetic to your schism problem. See what it gets me.
If I had to guess his meaning, it’s that schism is explicitly banned by the scriptures*, so better to try to beat the heresy rap.
_________
*http://www.therealchurch.com/church_splits/the_sin_of_schism.html
LikeLike
Hmm, whatever TVD is, he’s apparently not a historian. You keep saying, “historical fact.” As Inigo Montoya would say, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
It’s not terribly objectionable that churches have gone separate ways. But “schism” is a freighted term, and part of a larger story that we tell. The “Great Schism” doubly so … I’ve asked Harvard and Princeton-trained Byzantinists and Medievalists, and they agree that it’s a construction that reduces centuries of cultural shifts, political pressures, rhetorical representations, and stuff, to a one-shot fairy tale that takes place in 1054, which was probably not terribly big for contemporaries compared with everything else going on.
As for not trusting any church under 1000 years old, you clearly can’t mean the Roman Catholic Church, considering all the transmutations it has gone through, what with Vatican II, Trent, Lateran IV, etc. One leading medievalist argues that you can’t meaningfully speak of a “Roman” Catholic Church defined by lining up behind a single pontiff until the Investiture conflicts, which might stretch its age out to around 940 years, at best. The Eastern Orthodoxy myth of stasis was fortunate enough to hide behind the lack of Byzantine scholarship until recent decades, allowing a long-standing conceit that everything was the same for 1000 years.
And it’s not true that it’s always the “conservatives” who leave. Three examples off the top of my head: Presbyterian Church of Brazil, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (c. 1970s); Southern Baptist Convention (c. 1990s).
LikeLike
Tom – Actually, all your attacks on Catholicism are a great advertisement for the Eastern Orthodox…
Erik – Is their theology and worship thoroughly biblical? That’s the best link we have to the Apostles.
LikeLike
Tom,
Homosexuality is interesting in that it can probably only be rationally understood through the lens of Christianity. Christianity at least offers a spiritual explanation for it (Romans 1).
From an evolutionary perspective it makes no sense whatsoever since it contributes nothing to the perpetuation of the species. Nature would argue strongly against it and if there is a genetic link, nature would be doing everything within its power to remove the gene from the gene pool.
From a Christian perspective is does offer a bit of a conundrum from the Pro-life perspective. Since conception is never taking place, zero abortions result from homosexual relations. Far more children are aborted from Christians having sex with Christians than homosexuals having sex with homosexuals.
LikeLike
Thank you, Erik. Possible Darwinian explanations for homosexuality are here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486
The First Things link is very wise, how what a moral issue became a pseudoscientific one in our modern age, and now the pseudoscience is crashing—that is to say that there are some genetic correlations to homosexuality and that “Same-Sex Attraction” [SSA] is frequently unwanted by people, specifically some Christians.
by arguing ignorantly against SSA as “a choice,” against “homosexuals” rather than against homosexual conduct itself, traditional morality Christians have blown it bigtime.
LikeLike
Tom,
Wishful thinking by politically correct Darwinists. “Gay people have children, too.” Not with each other.
“venereal norms”. I learned a new term tonight.
LikeLike
Darren
Posted February 19, 2014 at 7:29 pm | Permalink
Hmm, whatever TVD is, he’s apparently not a historian. You keep saying, “historical fact.” As Inigo Montoya would say, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
It’s not terribly objectionable that churches have gone separate ways. But “schism” is a freighted term, and part of a larger story that we tell. The “Great Schism” doubly so … I’ve asked Harvard and Princeton-trained Byzantinists and Medievalists, and they agree that it’s a construction that reduces centuries of cultural shifts, political pressures, rhetorical representations, and stuff, to a one-shot fairy tale that takes place in 1054, which was probably not terribly big for contemporaries compared with everything else going on.
As for not trusting any church under 1000 years old, you clearly can’t mean the Roman Catholic Church, considering all the transmutations it has gone through, what with Vatican II, Trent, Lateran IV, etc. One leading medievalist argues that you can’t meaningfully speak of a “Roman” Catholic Church defined by lining up behind a single pontiff until the Investiture conflicts, which might stretch its age out to around 940 years, at best. The Eastern Orthodoxy myth of stasis was fortunate enough to hide behind the lack of Byzantine scholarship until recent decades, allowing a long-standing conceit that everything was the same for 1000 years.
And it’s not true that it’s always the “conservatives” who leave. Three examples off the top of my head: Presbyterian Church of Brazil, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (c. 1970s); Southern Baptist Convention (c. 1990s).
I’ve asked Harvard and Princeton-trained Byzantinists and Medievalists, and they agree that
Oh, well that settles it then. However, the use of “Schism” is understood by all, just as “Calvinist” or “Islamic” or “Roman” Catholic are. To dispute their use is to be obtuse.
As for your naming a handful of liberal schisms, that’s cool, although they’re the exception that proves the rule. But that’s what I get for being complimentary to the Warrior Children.
As for churches under 1000 years old–or those under 100–there is no controversy about their age. As for whatever historical holes in their timelines, their theological truth claims of “apostolic succession” are no less preposterous than those of the Protestant sects claiming to be the “true” church of the apostles or of Augustine, with a hole in their timelines so massive as to defy even the most charitable of historians.
It is not uncharitable for a historian to say that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church dates back only to 1936. It is above his paygrade to say that it’s not theologically the “true” church founded by Jesus Christ Hisself.
LikeLike
TVD,
Weren’t you the one issuing the challenge to “ask any historian”? I happen to know some of the top in the field. Are you now saying I shouldn’t ask them, and that your opinion is more right than theirs?
My point was that historians frequently investigate these terms “understood” by all, and suggest that what was “understood” is often over-simplified, misleading, one-sided, and occasionally just downright wrong. It may surprise you, but no, the use of “Calvinist” or “Islamic” or “Roman” are not understood by all (ask a typical evangelical what “schism” is and you’ll likely get lots of blank looks), and certainly not in the same way by all. And history can be quite the gadfly to such rationalism that has a hard time swallowing this notion: things change over time, and meanings change over time.
And you’re right: it’s not a historian’s job to judge the truth of a church’s theological claims. A historian can test and complicate a church’s historical claims. But I’m not sure what your point is by bringing up the OPC. No one’s disputing its age. I wasn’t talking about putting a number on institutional age per se. I was questioning the meaning that we impute to institutional age.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 19, 2014 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Wishful thinking by politically correct Darwinists. “Gay people have children, too.” Not with each other.
“venereal norms”. I learned a new term tonight.
That was some damn good writing there, eh, EC?
And the bigger point of the article is that there are no such things as “gay people,” or “homosexuals.” If you want to address it scientifically, it’s “same-sex attraction,” among the literary set, SSA.
SSA is not a moral failing, it’s not evil, it doesn’t make anyone less than a human being or one of God’s children. Even if it’s genetic, they have also found a “genetic predisposition” to gambling.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11447571
The whole point of being a human being created in the image of God–unlike the animals–is that DNA is not destiny. The “scientific” condemnation of same-sex attraction as an [unforgivable] abnormality was where Biblical moralists went wrong.
[Aquinas, although wrong on the biological details in 1250CE, had the teleology–the purpose, the end–the natural law of sex pretty right.]
LikeLike
Darren
Posted February 20, 2014 at 12:30 am | Permalink
TVD,
Weren’t you the one issuing the challenge to “ask any historian”? I happen to know some of the top in the field. Are you now saying I shouldn’t ask them, and that your opinion is more right than theirs?
My point was that historians frequently investigate these terms “understood” by all, and suggest that what was “understood” is often over-simplified, misleading, one-sided, and occasionally just downright wrong. It may surprise you, but no, the use of “Calvinist” or “Islamic” or “Roman” are not understood by all (ask a typical evangelical what “schism” is and you’ll likely get lots of blank looks), and certainly not in the same way by all. And history can be quite the gadfly to such rationalism that has a hard time swallowing this notion: things change over time, and meanings change over time.
And you’re right: it’s not a historian’s job to judge the truth of a church’s theological claims. A historian can test and complicate a church’s historical claims. But I’m not sure what your point is by bringing up the OPC. No one’s disputing its age. I wasn’t talking about putting a number on institutional age per se. I was questioning the meaning that we impute to institutional age.
Thx, Darren, for righteously conceding a point or two. And I’ll stipulate any term anyone wants to use for the sake of joint inquiry as opposed to debates with winners and losers, since whoever controls the words wins the debate. The word game is boring and insincere.
If I do have a point I can make it with whatever your choice of words.
Cheers, mate. I like you already.
but no, the use of “Calvinist” or “Islamic” or “Roman” are not understood by all
Oh, I think they are, more or less. 😉
LikeLike
vd,t “theology,” “history,” “sociology”? You’re the game show champion.
LikeLike
“The First Things link is very wise,”
tvd endorses theology.
tvd dismisses OL as theological.
tvd suffers the Vatican II complex.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Looks like Francis is embracing not only Pentecostals, but heretical Pentecostals:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2014/02/pope-francis-to-pentecostal-conference-tears-of-love-spiritual-hugs/
LikeLike
I look forward to seeing how Copeland can be squeezed into the CtC paradigm. Can Creflo Dollar be far behind?
LikeLike
Francis, knows an idiot when he sees one. He’s seen these guys make inroads in Latin America and is going to call them home. As Jason and Bryan are now ‘completed’ reformed guys, KC and clan can be ‘completed’ charismatics. I’m sure KC is looking at that going; “Gloria, that’s 1.2 billion people we haven’t got a ‘piece’ of yet, we gotta get in on that.”
LikeLike
Sean- As you have noted previously, and has seemed to be apparent to me for a long time given the third world numbers, it is clear where the ducks are. I am amazed at the speed with which Francis is moving, though.
LikeLike
Dan, I think it’s obvious the guy had a plan. Everybody seems to think these guys get locked in a room and wait on the Holy Spirit to ‘tell’ them who the pope should be. These cardinals have staffs, secretaries, money, PR personnel, the works. If you’re a cardinal, you’re a politician. Bergoglio was in a dead heat with Ratzinger in 2005, Ratzinger had to lobby hard and make promises to get the job but since then, it’s clear, Bergoglio was making plans, talking to his people and getting ready for this opportunity.
LikeLike
Tom – SSA is not a moral failing, it’s not evil, it doesn’t make anyone less than a human being or one of God’s children.
Erik – Prove that.
If God created us male and female and if the species is perpetuated by that attraction, where does that leave same sex attraction?
It’s against nature.
LikeLike
Pope Francis, Third World Man.
It’s a good day when I can work not one, but two, Dan songs into my comments.
LikeLike
Looks like Bryan Cross is already working on damage control on CTC, posting a link to the video and then commenting. Good to see that he has the back of the infallible Magisterium.
LikeLike
Robert,
Where?
All I saw were some responses to comments by Ted “The Gigolo” Bigelow, who has appeared here from time-to-time in the past. He’s not really a gigolo, just a Baptist minister who golfs a lot, if I recall correctly.
LikeLike
Erik – speaking of Mr. Bigelow, you perhaps saw his recent post (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/clark-frame-and-the-analogy-of-painting-a-magisterial-target-around-ones-interpretive-arrow/#comment-77907):
————
**“Scratch a Confessionalist and you’ll find a Biblicist every time.”
If they were biblicist, like me, they would not be confessional. Nor do they want to be known as biblicist.
Better to say, “scratch a confessionalist, and you’ll find a closet Roman Catholic” since they, like you, find religious authority outside the Word of God. **
—————-
Your thoughts?
LikeLike
Erik,
Here it is:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/overcoming-the-scandal-of-division/#comment-77883
Its in a comment on an older article. No front paging of it yet. Maybe they’re just hoping no one will notice.
Course, in a little while Bryan may pop in here and assure us that nothing the pope says, or the context in which he says it, disagrees in any way with the paradigm Bryan holds. In fact, I’m waiting with eager anticipation for it.
LikeLike
It looks like Pope Francis is taking the initiative to overcome the scandal of division with his (not so separated) brother Kenneth Copeland:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pope-francis-pentecostals-we-are-brothers/#post-comments
I’m sure all of this is consistent with everything in the CTC paradigm…of course that is the problem with paradigms. But I wonder if there is a more parsimonious explanation?
LikeLike
Petros, Bigelow has made the same claim here at some point, though paedobaptism has also been another alleged signal for closet Catholicism among the confessionally Reformed. He’s just repeating his Anabaptist ancestor’s balk that Protestants didn’t go far enough in their reforms. And so what we have from him–that Protestants are latent Catholics–is the flip side of the Callers who lump sola scriptura Protestants in with biblicist eeeevangelicals.
But so for those who don’t seem to recall that the Protestant Reformation was indeed a battle on two fronts, which, among so many other things, was also a battle against two camps which claimed the Holy Spirit above the word and descending like a dove on either the shoulder of the Church or into the heart of the Individual, Calvin reminds that:
We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists? And yet, that you may see that Satan never transforms himself so cunningly, as not in some measure to betray himself, the principal weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods. And you, Sadolet, by stumbling on the very threshold, have paid the penalty of that affront which you offered to the Holy Spirit, when you separated him from the Word.
LikeLike
It’s fairly amazing the stuff that gets traction anymore. That the pope and a starry-eyed, part RC, part evanjellyfish, part fake-anglican could bamboozle a bunch of word faith pentecostals is fairly unremarkable, except for it’s hubris. But, then again, you’re friends with Kenneth Copeland and these are his cronies, so, what exactly qualifies for hubris here?
That Rome might be able to talk a bunch of evanjellyfish, spirit-talkers into the RCC by means of capitalizing upon their ignorance, should hardly be surprising. I don’t see the pope having any intention of NOT being the pope or Rome giving up it’s self-congratulatory and self-proclaimed universal church mantle, much less Trent, to a bunch of aberrants.
LikeLike
Robert, who will rein Francis in? Is he the Joe Biden of the Vatican?
LikeLike
Petros – Better to say, “scratch a confessionalist, and you’ll find a closet Roman Catholic” since they, like you, find religious authority outside the Word of God. **
—————-
Your thoughts?
Erik – Buzz – wrong answer.
If one believes any part of a Reformed Confession to be unbiblical that person can challenge that part of the Confession through proper channels. Take it to your consistory and if they agree they can take it to Presbytery. If Presbytery agrees they can take it to General Assembly. Same process on the Continental Reformed side as on the Presbyterian side.
Most evangelical churches have “Statements of Faith” which function like Confessions. Unlike Presbyterianism, however, there is no formal process to challenge them that I’m aware of. Most of the time it’s just what the pastor or other charismatic church leader feels is right. How does that protect the consciences of church members against a church leader who is wrong or oversteps boundaries?
LikeLike
The Three Forms and the Westminster are like, hundreds of years old, man.
The Statement of Faith of Metro Evangelical Bible Church and Faith Center were written like six weeks ago by a dude who just finished up his church planting degree at Bible College.
LikeLike
Zrim/Petros,
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/02/confessional-relativism.html
LikeLike
I watched the talk by the Italian guy to Copeland & Co. Inc. I don’t think anyone’s come through here that does his religion. That guy would have a twinkle and a little smile as he unplugs Cross’ computer and tells Bryan to embrace Old Lifers.
LikeLike
Just watched video of Copeland praying for the Pope in tongues, or was it actually Italian?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JhuOicPFZY
LikeLike
hot van damme,
Since you have a pipeline to an infallible interpreter, perhaps he can explain the meaning.
In my book, the is a big bowl of bad writing.
LikeLike
Actually, this is all really good. I desperately want Cross and Copeland sharing the same space. The only thing that would make it better is if Francis schoolmarmed Cross and made him do it. “Bryan, BRYAN! You want that apostolate don’t you! Don’t paradigm me, young man, I was exercising the charism before you were born. Now, you go down to Texas and start ecumenical dialogue with Mr. Copeland and his wife. Bryan, BRYAN! I don’t want to hear about how Hahn needs you in Stuebenville for a conference, he’s got that bald, hipster Stellman for that, and you don’t sell on the internet much less TV. I NEED you at Copeland Kingdom Ministries Worldwide, bringing in the hundreds of thousands of dopey protestants, like you used to be. The Mormons tied you up in knots, you should be able to undermine The Kenneth in a visit or two. Now, get to it young man or you can kiss that dream of working at a pontifical university, goodbye. Yes, your beloved Ratzinger is just fine. No, you may not seek his input. Bryan, BRYAN! Bryan, kiss the virtual ring. Kiss it. Just go to my twitter account and choose the follow/kiss button the programmers at the institute for the works of religion had installed to placate me. Don’t come back until it’s done, Bryan. And lose the roo cap, it’s, it’s, I don’t know, you’re just so, so, WASPy. Work harder, do less.”
LikeLike
Sean, your explanation of 12:55 makes a lot of sense.
The entertainment value of this development has unlimited upside. Mencken would be all over it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Hays studied under Frame and takes issue with Clark and others with similar views on confessionalism. He is echoing the same point Bigelow is which is why he said Chantry/Clark’s unstable position is a halfway house to Rome. From another related piece:
Citing Chantry:
“To confessionalists – Presbyterian or Baptist – the confessional documents represent the settled corporate interpretations coming down to us from the ages. They are not individual interpretations (no individual can authorize or adopt a confession), but rather the summary of the teaching of the church. They are secondary standards under Scripture, but they create safe boundaries around our interpretation of Scripture. To transgress those boundaries in favor of an individual or private interpretation is to tread on thin ice. Whereas years or in some cases centuries of theological experience went into the language of the confession – often recognizing the dangers of certain misstatements – we live in an age in which far too many a Christian and even theologian is likely to stand alone with his Bible and say, “It seems to me…” Confessionalism is intended to prevent this error.”
Hays:
i) Does the 1646 edition of the Westminster Confession represent the safe boundary while the 1788 edition represents thin ice, or vice versa? Which one codifies the “settled interpretation”? Does the 1646 edition of the London Confession represent the safe boundary while the 1677 edition represents thin ice, or vice versa? Which one codifies the “settled interpretation”? What about the Savoy Declaration in relation to the Three Forms of Unity? Or the Augsburg Confession and the Thirty-nine Articles? Whichever one we subscribe to will transgress some boundaries of another. So which one captures the “collective wisdom of the church”?
ii) Which confession should he confess? Musn’t Chantry exercise his individual interpretation of Scripture to decide which competing confession is the most Scriptural? Or does he just flip a coin?
iii) Why does Chantry hold Frame to a confessional standard while giving Meredith Kline a pass? Chantry tells us “following the publication of The Escondido Theology my letter of support for WSC was published on their website.” Yet Kline was a theological maverick who bucked Reformed tradition. And Kline was one of Frame’s principal targets in The Escondido Theology. Chantry’s double standard is glaringly duplicitous.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 20, 2014 at 6:12 am | Permalink
vd,t “theology,” “history,” “sociology”? You’re the game show champion.
D. G. Hart
Posted February 20, 2014 at 6:19 am | Permalink
“The First Things link is very wise,”
tvd endorses theology.
tvd dismisses OL as theological.
tvd suffers the Vatican II complex.
DGHart, still addicted to word games.
Theology is OK. I don’t oppose it. In fact, your Reformed Confessions are theology, you just pretend thy’re sola scriptura.
Brother Petros got your number. I don’t dismiss Old Life as theological atall. It’s theology all the way.
You might be a TR (Totally Reformed) if…
18. You think “that Pope as the Antichrist thing” should never have been taken out of the Confession.
LikeLike
Just when I thought this convo had progressed, the mice come out to play, thinking the cat was away.
Popcorn eater, out. Keep at it, papalists.
Peace out yo
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 21, 2014 at 1:28 pm | Permalink
Tom – SSA is not a moral failing, it’s not evil, it doesn’t make anyone less than a human being or one of God’s children.
Erik – Prove that.
If God created us male and female and if the species is perpetuated by that attraction, where does that leave same sex attraction?
It’s against nature.
I believe it’s in your theology that man’s nature is fallen. Therefore there are all sorts of things in our nature that are fallen.
There facts on the ground are that SSA has been present in every society in man’s history, as have all the cardinal desires. It’s how we act on them [or don’t] that is of significance.
For instance, half of you want to hunt me down and kill me, but that you don’t is to your eternal credit. ;-P
Wikilicious. Except for #4, these require action.
In the Book of Proverbs 6:16-19, among the verses traditionally associated with King Solomon, it states that the Lord specifically regards “six things the Lord hateth, and seven that are an abomination unto Him”, namely:
A proud look
A lying tongue
Hands that shed innocent blood
A heart that devises wicked plots
Feet that are swift to run into mischief
A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
Him that soweth discord among brethren
As for #4, which might be characterized as sinful thoughts, I imagine there IS a point where one continually and continuously indulges oneself in fantasies of sinful action beyond just having attractions or urges. But I’m not quite talking about that. What I am saying is no amount of prayer is going to make someone willingly trade a Steve Reeves gladiator movie for a copy of Hustler. Sexual attraction just doesn’t work like that.
And of course what Pope Francis is trying to say is there are many such urges that “normal” people have that are no less sinful. If you’re saying here that those urges make us as “evil” as those with SSA, I see your point. As does Francis. ;-}
LikeLike
TvD,
“If you’re saying here that those urges make us as “evil” as those with SSA, I see your point. ”
Yep, which is why Westboro is absurd. And why liberals always trot out the “christians don’t seem to give a rip about their divorce/remarriage rates”. Although Paul does seem to single out homosexuality as particularly grave and disordered.
LikeLike
The desire for sin has already crossed the line into sin.
LikeLike
Tom,
All you’ve done above is argue that same sex attraction is one of many sins. I agree. You’re arguing with yourself saying earlier that it was morally neutral.
LikeLike
If confessionalism is “half way to Rome” you would think we would have got there by now. It’s been 500 years since Calvin was born.
LikeLike
Tom,
Read the Sermon on the Mount to learn what sin is. If you look at a woman lustfully, you’ve committed adultery with her in your heart. If you look at a man lustfully, you’ve committed adultery with him in your heart.
I’m prone to look at women lustfully, so I married a woman to have a righteous outlet for that inclination. A gay man has no righteous outlet for his inclination, so he’s in trouble. I feel badly for him, but he’s in a tough situation that requires celibacy or changing his inclination, as hard as that may be.
We didn’t create the world, we just live in it.
LikeLike
Cletus, Hays and the Triabloguers are to Reformed Protestantism what Cross and the Callers are to Rome. They’re the Reformed epistemologists for whom faith is the sum of its logical parts. They go with the Reformed culturalists and pietists. The Reformed confessionalists and doctrinalists go together.
LikeLike
me: whatever TVD is, he isn’t a historian…
…but no, the use of “Calvinist” or “Islamic” or “Roman” are not understood by all
TVD: Oh, I think they are, more or less.
me: I rest my case.
LikeLike
Darren
Posted February 21, 2014 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
me: whatever TVD is, he isn’t a historian…
…but no, the use of “Calvinist” or “Islamic” or “Roman” are not understood by all
TVD: Oh, I think they are, more or less.
me: I rest my case.
Well done. You can go in peace now, Darren. If you actually read this blog, you know that DGH has the sophistic drivebys covered.
You really don’t know what “Islamic” means in “Islamic” terrorism? What the “Roman” in “Roman Catholic” means?
“Calvinist?”
“Sophistic?”
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 21, 2014 at 9:09 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Read the Sermon on the Mount to learn what sin is.
Pls explain to the sophists here what sin is, EC. they get so confused sometimes.
If you look at a woman lustfully, you’ve committed adultery with her in your heart.
Well, I’ve heard that interpretation disputed, and I think convincingly. “Adultery in your heart” meaning “I’d bang her if I had the chance.”
But it should be a realistic chance, not a fantasy.
As in Kate Upton is all like, Oh, Darryl G. Hart, you’re so Calvinistically brilliant that I’d like to have your baby, conceived through natural means, if you know what I mean, and I know you know know what I mean, by natural means.
And that bowtie is hot, not to mention you’re a smoker of some sort. I love the leftover smell of cigars and single-malt in the morning, and finding a bowtie nestling above my womb.
If you look at a man lustfully, you’ve committed adultery with him in your heart.
See above, although there is the additional complication of sodomy, since a man can’t actually “bang” another man except by analogy. [I hope we don’t have to go into the anatomy stuff here.]
I’m prone to look at women lustfully
Say it ain’t so, my paragon of Puritan virtue!
But our discussion is whether SSA attraction is “natural,” so in the end, does “attraction” matter? It’s what you do about it.
so I married a woman to have a righteous outlet for that inclination.</i.
I'm sure she's flattered to be the object of your lusts. Sort of.
A gay man has no righteous outlet for his inclination, so he’s in trouble. I feel badly for him, but
OK.
he’s in a tough situation that requires celibacy or changing his inclination, as hard as that may be.
Imagine how he feels, then. You have a “righteous” outlet for yr attractions and urges. “He” doesn’t.
That is our discussion up to this point, mostly agreement [despite ourselves]. Discussions are good, and seldom possible.
LikeLike
Sean, what name would you have chosen is you became pope?
LikeLike
foxy damme, how about backing up and wiping away the spittle? You read a bunch of theonomists and think that the OL goose is cooked? Why doesn’t it work that way with SSPXer’s and your “conservatism”?
So what exactly is your point? Are you claiming to know that Reformed confessionalism is? Do you have the charism? Did Francis give you a jingle?
LikeLike
tVD, always the friend of believers. I know your faith better than you do. You, tvd, have all the understanding of Obama.
Are you actually for religious freedom or not? Why doesn’t religious freedom apply to the people you treat with contempt?
Love me.
LikeLike
tvd does more theology. His doesn’t stink.
LikeLike
Erik, can’t get to Rome because Rome keeps moving left.
LikeLike
tvd doesn’t play word games, “you’re doing theology, I do history.”
tvd doesn’t do drive bys, then he does.
tvd keeps score.
tvd wins games.
LikeLike
Darryl, I don’t know. It’d have to be a name that goes ‘all in’. Maybe another Boniface or even Urban. My twitter handle would have to be; “The Notorious P O P E. – best recognize, biatches”
LikeLike
Erik – “If confessionalism is “half way to Rome” you would think we would have got there by now. It’s been 500 years since Calvin was born.”
Or, perhaps, you didn’t get far enough away from Rome in the first place? Anabaptists may think so, anyway.
LikeLike
Petros, you mean the ones who swallow the Holy Spirit (feathers and all) the way Rome claims selective infallibility? Pot meet kettle.
LikeLike
Zrim – please advise why/how/where you think Anabaptists claim(ed) selective infallibility, or anything close to it. Thanks.
LikeLike
No Confessions, just snakes.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/19/snake-handling-pastor-funeral/5609843/
LikeLike
I miss Spanky and Alfalfa going at it at oldlife, ie. Paul M and Zrim, aka, Adam and Steve. That was like the populist version of Gordon Clark vrs. Cornelius Van Til- or, Calvinism for the masses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb5VcU8x0W4
LikeLike
John, you forgot about Buckwheat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CTExW2q_V4
LikeLike
Eminem,
That was pretty good but there is no oldlife character that could be pegged as Buckwheat. At least not one that I can think of.
LikeLike
Petros, Rome has the infallible Magisterium. It’s the Anabaptists who give us biblicism, as in just me and the Bible (or my favorite Bible expositor) and the Spirit down in the depths of my heart. The point is that these are two sides of the same coin of immediacy: Rome places the church over Scripture, the Anabaptists place experience over Scripture.
LikeLike
John, I always thought it was more like Scut and Ralphie
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 22, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink
tvd doesn’t play word games, “you’re doing theology, I do history.”
You’ve repeated that, um, untruth so often you probably even believe it by now. I never said that.
I’ve been known to theologize in a weak moment, just as occasionally you commit history. ;-P
LikeLike
Zrim – Can you advise how/where/when Anabaptists “place experience over Scripture”? And, to make the question contemporary, is it your view that Al Mohler and the Southern Baptists “place experience over Scripture?” If so, why?
LikeLike
Zrim – You think the RCC and Anabaptists are two sides to the same coin. Other people would see them as polar opposite. Those who see them as polar opposite conclude that confessionalists are half-way in between.
LikeLike
Petros, contemporary Baptists are more creatures of modernity than descendants of the Anabaptists–a foot in the Protestant Reformation and another the Radical Reformation.
LikeLike
Darryl/Erik,
Ditto to Petros’ point above. Hays’ point is that Clark and others’ confessionalism is an *unstable* position that’s a halfway house to Rome. Some people dig chilling there. Others recognize there’s no man behind the curtain and jump off the cloud.
Zrim, can you point out where Hays or Manata or other other tbloggers place experience over Scripture? Or do you not consider them anabaptist biblicists, just “Reformed epistemologist” biblicists?
Do you think experience didn’t (nor continues to) influence your choice of confessional subscription? Did that choice just beam into your head?
LikeLike
Clete,
500 year old Confessions unstable? We didn’t even need to have a Vatican II.
LikeLike
Erik,
Why were there revisions then? And which 500 year ones? As Hays said, “Whichever one we subscribe to will transgress some boundaries of another”. And just saying well, some agree with each other skirts the point.
LikeLike
Sums up Cletus’ existence nicely. Namely, it’s his/her existence beamed intothe head of some Hollywood producer.
For the record, Cletus Van Damme, James Young, Cletus(OL, CCC, CtC, respectively) changes his name depending on where he posts.
Remind you of someone (hello pundit the,).
Or do we address James as Monsignor? I smell a troll..
LikeLike
Andrew,
Don’t call me Shirley. Let me guess you head up your neighborhood watch. Or maybe jumped to be hall monitor in grade school.
LikeLike
foxy damme, and what you don’t concede is that the stability of Rome sometimes leads to three popes and sometimes to Alexander VI. And it never gives the gospel that Paul articulates or that adequately accounts for the once for all sacrifice of Christ and his sole mediatorship.
So if you want that kind of stability, have at it. But it’s not like your side isn’t on the road to infidelity.
LikeLike
dame cleats, you mean the revisions that it took Rome until the 1960s to make?
LikeLike
Lost my cleats,
Amazing what you can learn about people when they share about who they are.
Except you are way off here, despite me sharing about (
someall about) me every chance I get (i even have a website and tweet to boot!!)That troll label got to you, eh? Explain why if you choose to use a dumb handle here at OL, I don’t get to snack you around a little, now and again?
Or tell me something about you that you haven’t shared yet, and I’ll get back to talking golf only, to break that sweet silence that YOU keep distirbing.
Having fun yet?
Toodles for today.
LikeLike
Cletus, the Reformed pietist prioritizes experience. The Reformed epistemologist prioritizes the intellect. For example, Manata was fond of pointing out the great debt confessions owe philosophy as opposed to Scripture (per the confessionalist). A confessionalist has no trouble acknowledging the roles things like intellect and experience play in the life of faith–can a CtCer admit the role of private judgment in his relationship to the church? Seems hard to come by.
LikeLike
Last one, I promise..
Zrim,
I started tweeting recently. CtC is nothing more than BCross’ personal Twitter feed, online outlet. He posts video and things frequently to himself.
That dude is in whole hog. Expect no change from the script, from him.
Toodle-do.
LikeLike
Clete – Why were there revisions then? And which 500 year ones?
Erik – They don’t claim infallibility (not many revisions, though). I was rounding. The Heidelberg & The Belgic are 16th century documents, The Canons of Dort & The Westminster Standards are 17th century documents. Meanwhile Vatican II is like, so 1960s, dude.
LikeLike
Zrim – I’m still trying to understand the broad-brush categories that you use. You don’t like lumping “sola scriptura Protestants in with biblicist eeeevangelicals”, for instance. And from what I can tell, you think a “sola scriptura Protestant” is ‘good’, but a “Biblicist eeevangelical” is ‘bad’. And, you’ve said that “the Reformed pietist prioritizes experience” (presumably over and above Scripture, which if true, is ‘bad’, I’d agree.)
Can you clarify who the modern-day ‘bad’ Biblicist eeevangelicals are, or who the ‘bad’ Reformed pietists are that prioritize experience over Scripture? Can you give me some prominent names of people and churches who comprise these ‘bad’ categories so I can better understand your terminology. (I’m assuming you’ve got more in mind here than referring to last week’s snake-handler-pastor, for instance.) Thanks.
Asking the question slightly differently, what category tag would you put on Al Mohler, Dever, and John MacArthur?
LikeLike
Clete, Rome is stable? There may be a stability that is engendered by a McDonald’s styled predictability of sacramental practice, but you can’t sell catechetical stability in RC. There’s like 10 people who’ve even read it, and they all retired from the CDF and none of them speak to each other anymore.
LikeLike
Darryl,
dame cleats, you mean the revisions that it took Rome until the 1960s to make?
C’mon Dr. Hart, you should know the rules by now:
1. As long as the wording doesn’t change (Unam Sanctum), the change in meaning (Lumen Gentium) isn’t a real change. Just as Cletus, Kenneth, and the CTC crowd.
2. Vatican II wasn’t a “dogmatic council,” so it doesn’t really count. In fact, that it did so “little damage” is a testimony to the Spirit who couldn’t actually get the conference participants to write clearly. That he got unclear writing and not formal statements of heresy is a testimony that infallibility is working. Just ask Kenneth.
3. Rome isn’t going to say Nicea or the early councils didn’t happen. The fact that it ignores what those councils said about Rome not having a primacy of jurisdiction is irrelevant. That part wasn’t inspired. Just ask Cletus.
4. Nothing Vatican II said is incompatible with the paradigm of Bryan Cross, so stop your handwaving gestures. (Sorry, that was just me preempting Bryan’s drive-by).
5. You do not possess the knowledge of tradition to evaluate Rome, and it is improper to ask for Rome to define the full scope of tradition infallibly because, well, if Rome says it is tradition it is tradition. Just ask Cletus.
6. Rome didn’t change because Rome can’t change, wink, wink, nudge nudge.
LikeLike
I have been out of the oldlife loop for awhile so I am trying to catch up. It does take up a lot of time and I don’t really want to get involved in a cross addiction. This is a thread that is bringing back old arguments that have been going on here for a long time. I was especially attracted to the Steve Martin, Erik, Zrim and Jack M posts on the 3rd use of the Law. Plus the place of confessional statements in reformation theology is still a topic being debated. There is lots to digest- just pointing that out while waiting for Steve Martin to reply back (I want to know if Luther really did belch during his sermons on occasion, or is that another one of those Luther legends that may not really but true- I have to admit I did laugh so I guess that betrays a bit about my warped character).
I am still a bit uncertain if a lot of the talk about anabaptism is more caricature than actual portrayal of their positions but I would have to spend more time looking into that then I really want to at this time. I do find that to be an interesting and probably important topic and issue though.
Zrim, you are supposed to turn the other cheek not resort to violence- shocking video but I took it tongue in cheek.
LikeLike
Petros, sorry but mom always told me that naming names was bad form. She also told me never to be ashamed of being a broad stroker and to be content letting the detailers have all the glory.
LikeLike
Robert, my body has yet to be snatched.
LikeLike
John, I know, I know. But maybe the resistance theorists will be a little happier?
LikeLike
Zrim – well, nice to heed your mother. Absent any clarification from you, the terms you use are effectively meaningless. I’m just trying to learn if you’ve got something substantive to say, or if you’re just burning some convenient strawmen of your own creation.
LikeLike
Zrim – please. Can you clarify. You did name names (Mr. Bigelow) and then broad-brush him (citing Calvin) that his “tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods”. Meanwhile, Mr. Bigelow is fighting the good fight on behalf of sola scriptura today at CTC: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/01/clark-frame-and-the-analogy-of-painting-a-magisterial-target-around-ones-interpretive-arrow/#comment-78044 . You really see Mr. Bigelow as someone who prioritizes experience over Scripture, or who is trying to bury the Word of God?
LikeLike
Zrim, I’ll help. Tim Keller.
LikeLike
Darryl/Robert/sean,
Hays and tbloggers aren’t Roman Catholic. They made the instability charge.
Erik,
You just listed out 500 yr old confessions that agree with each other. Which skirts Hays’ point as I said earlier.
LikeLike
Cletes, be honest. Aren’t even you tired of your arguments? Your bullets are all gone, your rocks all gone, and now your throwing Styrofoam cups of room temperature coffee with powder creamer and that pink stuff in them. Maybe that was too specific. But you probably need a new audience for your tricks. Coffee cups don’t go with new audience so sorry for the mixed heretofore.
LikeLike
Clete,
500 year old agreeing Reformed Confessions that are faithful summaries of Scripture are good enough for me. Demanding “certainty” that isn’t there this side of heaven renders one susceptible to traps set by mere men. Rome has identified a need (for certainty) and created a product (infallibility) designed to meet that need. nothing more. Like all good capitalists they’ve been paid handsomely.
LikeLike
One of the most telling facts about Papal infallibility is the late date it was asserted. The Cornerstone of the Caller’s apologetic somehow escaped mention for 1,000 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
One can cite “development of doctrine”, but for such a critical doctrine to develop is akin to Christians first asserting the resurrection of Christ in the Middle Ages.
LikeLike
Erik,
Hays and Bigelow aren’t RC.
Faithful summaries of Scr. So the 500 yr old stable confessions of other traditions you disagree with aren’t. So no man behind the curtain. Join team Bigelow.
LikeLike
foxy lady, so Hays isn’t stable. Your point?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
One of the most telling facts about Papal infallibility is the late date it was asserted. The Cornerstone of the Caller’s apologetic somehow escaped mention for 1,000 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
One can cite “development of doctrine”, but for such a critical doctrine to develop is akin to Christians first asserting the resurrection of Christ in the Middle Ages.
Did you read your link, Erik? Seems like a lot of wiggle room.
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
One of the most telling facts about Papal infallibility is the late date it was asserted. The Cornerstone of the Caller’s apologetic somehow escaped mention for 1,000 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
One can cite “development of doctrine”, but for such a critical doctrine to develop is akin to Christians first asserting the resurrection of Christ in the Middle Ages.
Erik, acc to your own link
there’s lots of wiggle room, esp the last. [BF mine.]
Further,
In addition, before 1870 belief in papal infallibility was not a defined requirement of Catholic faith.
and judging by the statements of later popes
In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know”.[16] His predecessor Pope John XXIII once remarked: “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible”.[17]
they’d rather forget the whole thing. Again, this issue seems to matter a lot more to critics of Catholicism and of course professional malcontents like Garry Wills and Hans Kung than your rank-and-file.
LikeLike
vdt, you haven’t kept up. CtC’s ENTIRE CIP vs.PIP hinges on, now thanks to us, PRINCIPLED distinction of infallibility. But, you’re right, outside the internet make believe of CtC, there isn’t a single RC who thinks about or gives it the time of day.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Faithful summaries of Scr. So the 500 yr old stable confessions of other traditions you disagree with aren’t. So no man behind the curtain. Join team Bigelow.
Umm, the only other 500 year old stable confessions of other traditions I can think of are the Formula of Concord, Augsburg Confession, and the 39 Articles, all of which teach the same things as Westminster or the Three Forms of Unity on the Trinity, Justification, the fallibility of the church, and a host of other issues. So yeah, they’re faithful summaries of Scripture. One can be faithful without being perfect.
And the fact that I have more in common confessionally with even a Wesleyan than do you with Nancy Pelosi proves that our faithful summaries are doing just fine.
LikeLike
Petros, since when did gossip align with substance or clarification? Ever heard of reading between lines? But I get the sense this isn’t about names but the fact that you don’t like the categories I’m using (a new life trait). What Bigelow has suggested before is that Protestants are latent Catholics because we still baptize babies. That’s an awful lot like the Anabaptists who said the Prots didn’t go far enough in their reforms. Couple that with an ecclesiology and sacramentology more in line with the Radical than the Protestant Reformation…
LikeLike
sean
Posted February 23, 2014 at 7:16 pm | Permalink
vdt, you haven’t kept up. CtC’s ENTIRE CIP vs.PIP hinges on, now thanks to us, PRINCIPLED distinction of infallibility.</i.
I think you'll find it's more on the infallibility of the magisterium, the Church as a whole–indeed the bold face
emphasizes that. [In Erik’s linked article, they point out a pope’s error [you guys should read the link!]
But, you’re right, outside the internet make believe of CtC, there isn’t a single RC who thinks about or gives it the time of day.
Isn’t CtC’s argument about the magisterium as a whole as explained here, not merely the pope, who has spoken ex cathedra only rarely, and on stuff that–true–nobody cares about* [like the Immaculate Conception]? Do you have any direct quotes to the contrary? This whole drama seems rather strawmannish.
There’s a lot in the Catholic argument that depends on the Holy Spirit guiding the legitimate Church via apostolic succession, but papal infallibility is a footnote to the bigger magisterial picture.
______
*”Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII’s 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church’s magisterium.[69] However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.
Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):
“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;[70]
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.
[People don’t even know what most of this stuff is, let alone the theology of it.]
LikeLike
“There’s a lot in the Catholic argument that depends on the Holy Spirit guiding the legitimate Church via apostolic succession, but papal infallibility is a footnote to the bigger magisterial picture.”
Theology (from a lapsed Roman Catholic)!
LikeLike
Clete – Faithful summaries of Scr. So the 500 yr old stable confessions of other traditions you disagree with aren’t. So no man behind the curtain. Join team Bigelow.
Erik – We can talk about those differences. Many of them are minor.
An RCC Catechism of nearly 3,000 Q&A’s isn’t exactly perspicuous.
LikeLike
Historian Tom – There’s a lot in the Catholic argument that depends on the Holy Spirit guiding the legitimate Church via apostolic succession, but papal infallibility is a footnote to the bigger magisterial picture.
Erik – Take us back to 33 AD to show us apostolic succession via the Bishop of Rome.
The problem is the use of a very amorphous “magisterial picture” to arrive at very precise truth claims about authority in time and space.
LikeLike
Another question: How exactly has 2,000 years of “development of doctrine” really improved on the teaching of Christ and the apostles that took place over 50 or so years? Has “development” honestly clarified much in a helpful way? Go up to 10 Catholics chosen at random and give them a quiz on what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and marvel at their divergent answers.
I might concede some helpful development on the doctrine of the Trinity, but not much else.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
Another question: How exactly has 2,000 years of “development of doctrine” really improved on the teaching of Christ and the apostles that took place over 50 or so years? Has “development” honestly clarified much in a helpful way? Go up to 10 Catholics chosen at random and give them a quiz on what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and marvel at their divergent answers.
Well, I doubt few know what Vatican II did either*, but Catholic critics seem to know all about it. Or claim to. Kinda short on specifics. The bleat goes like this:
To any substance, from what I gather, Vat II “changed” [developed?] “there is no salvation outside the Church” to a more expansive understanding of “the Church,” which now includes you heretics too. Door’s open, come home to Rome! And even if you don’t, the Holy Father is still your pastoral father whether you like it or not, so there.
Pretty slick. Props.
I might concede some helpful development on the doctrine of the Trinity, but not much else.
The Trinity is no little thing, though. The Arian heresy is almost 1700 years old, and it ain’t dead yet!
_______
* Except going to the vernacular instead of Latin in worship, which was a surrender to the Reformation afterall, yes?
LikeLike
Erik,
“We can talk about those differences. Many of them are minor.”
So some of them aren’t. So we haven’t moved anywhere.
I guess closed communion practice is just some mental hiccup.
Are the 500 yr old Arminian confessions faithful summaries of Scripture?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 23, 2014 at 9:08 pm | Permalink
“There’s a lot in the Catholic argument that depends on the Holy Spirit guiding the legitimate Church via apostolic succession, but papal infallibility is a footnote to the bigger magisterial picture.”
Theology (from a lapsed Roman Catholic)!
“History” from a lapsed historian? Put “Rev.” in front of your name, Rev. Dr. Darryl G. Hart, write as a churchman and as a preacher, as an aspiring theologian, and I got your back.
Otherwise get off mine. Your bio says you’re a historian, and at the top of this webpage it says this is a “theological society.”
I play by your rules. Plus I love you, man. You’re getting everything you advertised for, Rev. Dr. Historian Christian Theologian/Churchman. Sorry I had to quit smoking or I’d do a Double Claro with you, but when God broke my leg, I think He was telling me I had to let it go.
Unless Rev. Doc DGH Nicotine Society thinks I should take up smoking again. I’m looking for a justification, any excuse. I used to be fatalistic and triumphal, that not every smoker gets cancer or emphysema. It’s God’s will.
Then again, it’s a bit like snake-handling, eh? Testing God…?
Ooops, I just theologized agin. Damn me. Dang me! See how you trouble me, D? Damn, I need a smoke.
LikeLike
vd,t, right, when you’re losing, do what all secularists do to believers — call them sectarian (i.e., using theology rather than reason).
You’ve got my back. Boy, you really do think highly of yourself. Why are you punking me? If this is a theological society, why keep blowing the whistle that theology is happening?
What you may not understand is that people can be more than one thing — historian in the classroom, vinegary Presbyterian at a blog. It shouldn’t be too hard for you to understand. I’m sure you couldn’t hold your job or your wife if you acted in the office the way you act here.
LikeLike
Well, just as tad knows that everybody knows what “Calvinist,” “Islamic,” and “Roman” are, I guess he also knows that everybody knows what an “historian,” and a “theologian” are also. How uncomfortable it must for him when people don’t conform to what everybody knows.
LikeLike
I’m sure DGH will post something about this, but I watched this documentary and my stomach is turned about the organizational corruption of the Roman Catholic Church and the behavior of JP II:
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365187642/
LikeLike
Meanwhile on the never-changing religion front:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Criticized+Ratzinger+Liberation+Theology+hailed+Vatican/9549916/story.html
Money Quote: “The founder of liberation theology, the Latin American-inspired Catholic theology advocating for the poor, received a hero’s welcome Tuesday at the Vatican as the once-criticized movement continues its rehabilitation under Pope Francis.”
LikeLike
But Robert, nothing you have said either mitigates against or refutes or in any way contradicts what Bryan may or may not have said or will say or amend so as to better apologize for what the pope or roman church has said, evar. Come home to Rome, Robert. Be a completed-presbyterian like Hahn and Stellman. You know you want to.
In other news, the pope has begun to roll back the legacy of Ratzinger and charge forward with previously undeveloped Vat II initiatives and even recover the theology of the Jesuit marxists in Latin America and the insights of higher-critics like Bultmann. All cradles reply; “we remember this guy”. All prot-catholics respond; “oh, sh&^$. Quick, somebody say something to me in Latin while I numb out praying the rosary.”
LikeLike
Money Quote: “The founder of liberation theology, the Latin American-inspired Catholic theology advocating for the poor, received a hero’s welcome Tuesday at the Vatican as the once-criticized movement continues its rehabilitation under Pope Francis.”
doesn’t have the same pizzazzzzzzzzz in 2014 as it did back in the day of the Great Leap Forward and the Glorious Forthcoming Communist Workers’s Revolution
of the Berrigan Brothers
LikeLike
Sean,
I know, I know, when will I learn.
I’m just thinking how delighted my undergraduate RC professor of religious studies must be. She was a teaching assistant to Gutierrez.
LikeLike
sean, Hitching your wagon and paradigm to the papacy means you are in for one roller coaster of a ride.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 24, 2014 at 6:17 am | Permalink
vd,t, right, when you’re losing, do what all secularists do to believers — call them sectarian (i.e., using theology rather than reason).
You’ve got my back. Boy, you really do think highly of yourself. Why are you punking me? If this is a theological society, why keep blowing the whistle that theology is happening?
What you may not understand is that people can be more than one thing — historian in the classroom, vinegary Presbyterian at a blog. It shouldn’t be too hard for you to understand.
Well, actually, it’s that when you put your historian’s hat on, you still write theology. Which would be OK except you wouldn’t put up with that from Francis Schaeffer.
I’m sure you couldn’t hold your job or your wife if you acted in the office the way you act here.
Cheap shot talking about my friends and family, but as a matter of fact they don’t distort what I’m saying and they don’t call people names. Check yrself on this, O Theologue.
LikeLike
vd, t, have you read eberhart?
LikeLike