Michael New complains that the Pew poll on Roman Catholics in the U.S. does not distinguish between average and serious church members:
The “Public Religion Research Institute” released a fact sheet a few weeks ago on the attitudes of Roman Catholics which had the mainstream media swooning. It found that majorities of Catholics disagree with church teachings same-sex marriage and contraception. It also found that White Catholics were more likely than not to believe abortion should be legal “in all or most cases.” It also found that 60 percent of Catholics feel the church places too much emphasis on sexual issues and should instead focus on issues pertaining to social justice. Furthermore, about 60 percent of Catholics also believe that the church should either “adjust traditional beliefs and practices in light of new circumstances or adopt modern beliefs and practices.”
However, anyone with a passing familiarity with survey research knows that there is a significant problem with this survey and others like it. Namely, it lumps all self- identified Catholics together. It does not draw distinctions between Catholics who attend Mass on a weekly basis and those who attend less often. Both scholars of public opinion and survey research professionals know that church attendance is far better predictor of opinions on issues — particularly social issues — than one’s faith tradition. Furthermore, there is a substantial body of research which finds that frequent Mass attendees are likely to agree with church teachings.
But doesn’t the church’s hierarchy also lump all these people together? Why would Mr. New expect pollsters or the press to be more disciplined in their evaluations than the church’s clergy?
Old Life 
Of course they do. You can’t sustain the RCC, vocationally or financially, on the backs of the trads.
LikeLike
Nor do they want to.
LikeLike
If they start disciplining people they will lose some of their bigness and we can’t have that.
LikeLike
Erik said:
If they start disciplining people they will lose some of their bigness and we can’t have that.
It would certainly weaken the apologetic of the various RCs around here who refer to the PCA and OPC pejoratively as little, insignificant sects.
I look at Rome and the utter faithlessness of so many of her people to her dogma and I think that the only reason she continues on is due to inertia.
LikeLike
What % do they believe would be weekly mass attenders who never used contraception?
Is it going higher than .01% in North America?
LikeLike
Never used is an impossibly high standard. A more interesting statistic would be % of weekly mass attenders between the ages of 20 and 45 who do not currently use barrier or chemical contraception . That number I would guess pushes into the 20% range with a larger number who might agree that they are sinning, but divorce would be a bigger sin, so they are following Luther and sinning boldly.
LikeLike
It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry. H L Mencken
LikeLike
Prince of the Church in Atlanta won’t be living quite as large:
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-archbishop-sell-atlanta-mansion-175553148.html
LikeLike
Robert – It would certainly weaken the apologetic of the various RCs around here who refer to the PCA and OPC pejoratively as little, insignificant sects.
Erik – Jeremy Tate especially takes great comfort that his new church is really, really big. It’s ginormous, if not outright huge. One could even say it’s downright large.
LikeLike
Robert – I look at Rome and the utter faithlessness of so many of her people to her dogma and I think that the only reason she continues on is due to inertia.
Erik – Yeah, but those faithless people are so numerous you can’t even count them using the normal methods of fingers and toes. Bet the OPC can’t say that!
LikeLike
Money, sean.
LikeLike
Mark,
But let’s discuss seed spilling.
Wait, let’s not…
LikeLike
Literate Comments has exclusive footage of move-out day:
http://literatecomments.com/2014/04/05/atlanta-archbishop-to-sell-mansion-we-have-exclusive-footage-of-him-moving-out/
LikeLike
Erik,
Don’t forget http://baylyblog.com/blog/2014/02/post-john-macarthurs-money-answering-objections
LikeLike
Mark, how many families have nine children?
Especially in so-called RC countries or regions.
LikeLike
Kent — What % do they believe would be weekly mass attenders who never used contraception?
I’ve cited an article about that here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/02/al-capone-catholic-murderer-and-pop.html
LikeLike
Clete,
John McWho?
LikeLike
Clete,
It’s your guy who is making a show of living in a gardener’s shed and driving a Yugo.
LikeLike
Kent — that’s in the US. Here’s the original article and the larger quote:
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2014/the-shame-of-the-catholic-subculture.html
LikeLike
Darryl, Scott, and random sound effects — the latest Heidelcast:
http://heidelblog.net/2014/04/recovering-mother-kirk/
LikeLike
The discuss a new Star Trek novel called “Recovering Mother Kirk.”
LikeLike
Michael New has a point. A poll of “Presbyterians” might come out all sorts of ways depending on your criteria.
http://www.mlp.org/
LikeLike
I’d like to buy a “y”.
LikeLike
Tom, we separated from our liberals. Rome still has hers in spades as the survey attests. Whether they claim you or not — now that’s an interesting question.
LikeLike
Cw, everytime you show up, a thread grows the beard.
LikeLike
And you, Pony Boy, have a lovely main. Quit reading and go listen to Hart on the Heidelcast — very revealing.
[audio src="http://rscottclark.org/wp-content/audio/heidelcast-67-apr-06-2014.mp3" /]
LikeLike
*mane*
LikeLike
I’m on it, C, just as soon as I sink this putt.
Kirk out.
LikeLike
Talk about a mane.
LikeLike
sean, triple ding.
LikeLike
Chortles weakly
Posted April 5, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
Tom, we separated from our liberals. Rome still has hers in spades as the survey attests.
Depends on who “we” is. Whose Presbyterianism is it, anyway? As a microscopic minority, it cannot be said it’s yours.
Structurally, Catholicism can’t be compared to most varieties of Protestantism–the pope appoints the bishops and designates the cardinals, who in turn periodically elect one of their own as the new pope. “Catholicism” is the property of the magisterium, its priests.
By contrast, Protestantism is more like representative democracy–in the end, the laity decides what “Presbyterianism” or Methodism,” etc. is–either by either by raising or demoting its leaders, or in your case, by leaving and starting a new denomination.
When comparing Catholicism and Protestantism, one size does not fit all.
Hm.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9907234/Church-proposes-separate-church-for-gays
LikeLike
sean
Posted April 5, 2014 at 4:12 pm | Permalink
It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry. H L Mencken
D. G. Hart
Posted April 5, 2014 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
sean, triple ding.
Once again, the Old Life “theological society” shows zero understanding of the underlying theology. Dr. Hart has some excuse for his ignorance, but ex-Catholic Sean has none.
LikeLike
Tom Troll aka Nowhere Man does church history, ecclesiology, and theology. I’d like “R” for Renaissance Man for $500, Alex.
LikeLike
Cw go easy on us
pony boysgame show victors. It’s a tortured life we lead.LikeLike
Chortles weakly
Posted April 5, 2014 at 8:18 pm | Permalink
Tom Troll aka Nowhere Man does church history, ecclesiology, and theology. I’d like “R” for Renaissance Man for $500, Alex.
I accept your surrender, Mr. Weakly. When you have no intelligent reply [usually], y’all resort to this sort of thing.
My observation stands unmolested.
___________
I do go easy, Ponyboy. I have no desire to scorch your earth, only plow it afresh. 😉
LikeLike
vd, t, I have you on another thread expressing your true feelings for our host. Shall I go on?
LikeLike
Chorts – Tom Troll aka Nowhere Man
Erik – Since spring is here this reminds me it’s just about time to break out “Rubber Soul”.
Nice tip on the Heidelcast.
Also, the film “Nowhere Boy” about Lennon’s childhood is not bad.
LikeLike
AB
Posted April 5, 2014 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
vd, t, I have you on another thread expressing your true feelings for our host. Shall I go on?
At least come up with your own filthy insults instead of aping Darryl’s. You need to think for yourself at least occasionally.
And I do go easy on you, believe me.
LikeLike
LikeLike
So which is it, Nowhere man (ask TV Cletus boy, Nowhere Man is a great show).
You want me to insult you? Who are you?
LikeLike
To me, someone has to be the largest group. It’s either Sunni or Shiite Muslims that still outnumber RCs. I enjoy the numbers game as much as anyone, but really, RC’s get in line like everyone else. Ie Mary, Josepeh, etc..
Just me, over generalizing. Peace out.
LikeLike
AB
Posted April 5, 2014 at 9:02 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke
Posted April 1, 2014 at 10:37 pm | Permalink
I learn a lot by fisking Darryl’s House of Fun. The only puzzle is whether he’s ignorant, stupid or dishonest.
Couldn’t have said it better meself. Oh wait, I did.
The distortions of Catholic theology arrive like clockwork. I’ve learned a lot about it double-checking Dr. Hart’s misrepresentations of it.
I’m hoping he’s just ignorant about it, because then there’s still hope. I saw you got a letter published again in First Things, Darryl. As usual, you got your head handed to you.
LikeLike
Tommy TV, I’ve forgotten more of the underlying theology than you’ll ever know, much less practice. And though I understand that L.A. has made you immune to the jackass you ooze, do try and remember that the rest of us have staked our souls to our beliefs and acted on them. But, with you, I won’t be picky, just start with going to mass and work the steps, just like N.A. It’s one day at a time, oh great pretender.
LikeLike
Tom said:
Structurally, Catholicism can’t be compared to most varieties of Protestantism–the pope appoints the bishops and designates the cardinals, who in turn periodically elect one of their own as the new pope. “Catholicism” is the property of the magisterium, its priests.
By contrast, Protestantism is more like representative democracy–in the end, the laity decides what “Presbyterianism” or Methodism,” etc. is–either by either by raising or demoting its leaders, or in your case, by leaving and starting a new denomination.
Yeah. Typically, Protestant laity leave when the pastors go apostate. With Rome the laity continues not to care, and the whole thing hangs together. It’s amazing how unified you can be when your identity consists of going to mass on occasion and thinking that the pope is important, but not important enough to actually, you know, share his theology.
LikeLike
CW, but I’d prefer Great Mullets in TV Game Show History for $100.
LikeLike
vd, t, “I do go easy, Ponyboy. I have no desire to scorch your earth, only plow it afresh.”
Let’s keep it PG here.
LikeLike
Tom – I saw you got a letter published again in First Things, Darryl. As usual, you got your head handed to you.
Erik – Do you have a link, or is for subscribers only?
Oh, and, as usual, you have your head up your butt.
LikeLike
Tom, you are Nowhere Man and I’d rather be a liberal prot than a Papist:
AB
Posted April 1, 2014 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
I’d join tillich before Francis..
The relation to God is personal. It is an ego-thou relationship, not mediated by anybody or anything – only by accepting the message of acceptance, which is the content of the Bible. This is not an objective status in which you are, but this is a personal relationship, which he called “faith”; but not faith in something which one can believe, but acceptance that you are accepted: this is what he meant.
It is qualitative, not quantitative. Either you are separated or you are not separated from God. There are no quantities of separation or non-separation. In a person-to-person relationship you can say: there are conflicts, there are tensions, but as long as the relationship is a relationship of confidence and love, it is a quality. And if it is separated, it is something else. But it is not a matter of quantity. And in the same way, it is unconditional and not conditioned, as it is in the Roman system. You are not a little bit nearer to God if you do a little bit more for the church, or against your body, but you are near to God completely, absolutely, if you are united with Him; and you are separated if you are not The one is unconditionally negative; the other is unconditionally positive. The Reformation restates the unconditional categories of the Bible.
From this follows that the magic element as well as the legal element in the piety disappear. The forgiveness of sins, or acceptance, is not an act of the past done in baptism, but it is continuously necessary. Repentance is an element in every relationship to God, in every moment. It never can stop. The magic as well as the legal element disappear, for grace is personal communion with the sinner. There is no possibility of any merit; there is only the necessity of accepting. And there is no hidden magic power in our souls which make us acceptable, but we are acceptable in the moment in which we accept acceptance. Therefore the sacramental activities as such are rejected. There are sacraments, but they mean something quite different. And the ascetic activities are eternally rejected because none of them can give certainty. But here again a misunderstanding often prevails. One says: Now isn’t that egocentric:; l think Maritain told me that once – if the Protestants think about their own individual certainty? – Now it is not an abstract certainty, that Luther meant; it is reunion with God – this implies certainty. But everything centers around this being accepted. And this of course is certain; if you have God, you have Him. But if you look at yourself, at your experiences, your asceticism, and your morals, then you can be certain only if you are extremely self-complacent and blind toward yourselves; otherwise you cannot. And these, are absolute categories. The Divine demand is absolute. They are not relative demands, which bring more or less blessedness, but they are the absolute demand: joyfully accept the will of God. And there is only one punishment – not the different degrees between the ecclesiastical satisfactions, between the punishment in purgatory, and its many degrees, and finally Hell. There is nothing like this. There is only one punishment, namely the despair of being separated from God. And consequently there is only one grace, namely, reunion with God. That’s all. And to this, Luther – whom Adolf Harnack, the great historian of the dogma, has called a genius of reduction – to this simplicity, Luther has reduced the Christian religion. This is another religion.
Now Luther believed that this was a restatement of the New Testament, especially of Paul. But although his message has the truth of Paul, it’s by no means the full Paul; it is not everything which Paul is. The situation determined what he took from Paul, namely Paul’s conception of defense against legalism – the doctrine of justification by faith. But he did not take in Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit. Of course he did not deny it; there is a lot of it; but that is not decisive. The decisive thing is that a doctrine of the Spirit, of being “in Christ,” of the New Being, is the weak spot in Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith.
In Paul the situation is different. Paul has three main centers in his thinking, which make it not a circle but a triangle. The one is his eschatological consciousness, the certainty that in Christ eschatology is fulfilled and a New Reality has started. The second is the doctrine of the Spirit, which means for him that the Kingdom of God has appeared, that it is here, and there; that the New Being, in which we are, is given to us in Christ. The third point in Paul is the critical defense against legalism: justification by faith.
Luther took all three, of course. But the eschatological point was not really understood. He, in his weariness of the theological fights – you cannot become more tired of anything in the world than of theological controversies, if you always are living it; and even Melanchthon, when he came to death, one of his last words was: “God save me now from the rabies theologorum – from the wrath of the theologians! This is an expression you will understand if you will read the conflicts of the centuries. I just read with great pain, day and night, the doctor’s dissertation of a former pupil, Mr. Thompson, Dr. McNeill’s former assistant, an excellent work in which he describes in more than 300 narrow and large pages the struggle between Melanchthonism and Lutheranism. And if you read that and then see how simple the fundamental statement of Luther was, and how the rabies theologorum produced an almost unimaginable amount of theological disputations on points of which even half-learned theologians as myself would say that they are intolerable, they don’t mean anything any more – then you can see the difference between the prophetic mind and the fanatical theological mind.
LikeLike
sean, vd, t is just warming up before he goes out on a date. Remember the time difference and the charm.
LikeLike
sean
Posted April 5, 2014 at 9:43 pm | Permalink
Tommy TV, I’ve forgotten more of the underlying theology than you’ll ever know, much less practice. And though I understand that L.A. has made you immune to the jackass you ooze, do try and remember that the rest of us have staked our souls to our beliefs and acted on them. But, with you, I won’t be picky, just start with going to mass and work the steps, just like N.A. It’s one day at a time, oh great pretender.
If you understand Catholicism, why doesn’t it show? You traded one set of ignorances for another.
LikeLike
<i.Erik Charter
Posted April 5, 2014 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
Tom – I saw you got a letter published again in First Things, Darryl. As usual, you got your head handed to you.
Erik – Do you have a link, or is for subscribers only?
Oh, and, as usual, you have your head up your butt.
You almost said something principled there instead of being Darryl’s poodle. Yes, it’s subscriber only, but I’m sure Darryl will get their permission to post it here so people can get the full unedited story.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted April 5, 2014 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
vd, t, “I do go easy, Ponyboy. I have no desire to scorch your earth, only plow it afresh.”
Let’s keep it PG here.
The dirty adolescent mind, as has become yr custom.
LikeLike
I’m all ears, Tom. Explain why the term Paplism doesn’t neatly define the religion you seek to promote by being here. Or else you are simply jealous of our host and enjoy putting people down, like they do in 2nd grade.
Speak up, man.
LikeLike
Tom – You almost said something principled there
Erik – What gave you that idea?
I’ve developed my own healthy dislike for you without regards for Darryl. You act like an ass so I treat you like an ass, which presumably you enjoy, because you’ll come back tomorrow and act like an ass, I’ll treat you like an ass…
LikeLike
I move we apply the Sowers Rule, and be done with him, as we have been with Doug and Greg the Terrible.
Do I hear a second?
LikeLike
The only people who Tom gets the better of are those who take the time to attempt to seriously engage him. He just disregards them and in effect gives them the finger. If you can have fun razzing him, join in. Otherwise, just ignore him. I would go Sowers rule on him if it were up to me and see how long he persists with no interaction. He might be sociopathic enough to go on for quite awhile.
LikeLike
We have a motion and a second, gents.
You know what to do.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Uncanny. I wrote that the same time you did. I’m your second.
I think Darryl likes razzing him, though. He’s long past taking him seriously.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s our combined professional endeavor. Peace brother.
LikeLike
AB
Posted April 1, 2014 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
I’d join tillich before Francis..
The relation to God is personal. It is an ego-thou relationship, not mediated by anybody or anything – only by accepting the message of acceptance, which is the content of the Bible. This is not an objective status in which you are, but this is a personal relationship, which he called “faith”; but not faith in something which one can believe, but acceptance that you are accepted: this is what he meant.
It is qualitative, not quantitative. Either you are separated or you are not separated from God. There are no quantities of separation or non-separation. In a person-to-person relationship you can say: there are conflicts, there are tensions, but as long as the relationship is a relationship of confidence and love, it is a quality. And if it is separated, it is something else. But it is not a matter of quantity. And in the same way, it is unconditional and not conditioned, as it is in the Roman system. You are not a little bit nearer to God if you do a little bit more for the church, or against your body, but you are near to God completely, absolutely, if you are united with Him; and you are separated if you are not The one is unconditionally negative; the other is unconditionally positive. The Reformation restates the unconditional categories of the Bible.
From this follows that the magic element as well as the legal element in the piety disappear. The forgiveness of sins, or acceptance, is not an act of the past done in baptism, but it is continuously necessary. Repentance is an element in every relationship to God, in every moment. It never can stop. The magic as well as the legal element disappear, for grace is personal communion with the sinner. There is no possibility of any merit; there is only the necessity of accepting. And there is no hidden magic power in our souls which make us acceptable, but we are acceptable in the moment in which we accept acceptance. Therefore the sacramental activities as such are rejected. There are sacraments, but they mean something quite different. And the ascetic activities are eternally rejected because none of them can give certainty. But here again a misunderstanding often prevails. One says: Now isn’t that egocentric:; l think Maritain told me that once – if the Protestants think about their own individual certainty? – Now it is not an abstract certainty, that Luther meant; it is reunion with God – this implies certainty. But everything centers around this being accepted. And this of course is certain; if you have God, you have Him. But if you look at yourself, at your experiences, your asceticism, and your morals, then you can be certain only if you are extremely self-complacent and blind toward yourselves; otherwise you cannot. And these, are absolute categories. The Divine demand is absolute. They are not relative demands, which bring more or less blessedness, but they are the absolute demand: joyfully accept the will of God. And there is only one punishment – not the different degrees between the ecclesiastical satisfactions, between the punishment in purgatory, and its many degrees, and finally Hell. There is nothing like this. There is only one punishment, namely the despair of being separated from God. And consequently there is only one grace, namely, reunion with God. That’s all. And to this, Luther – whom Adolf Harnack, the great historian of the dogma, has called a genius of reduction – to this simplicity, Luther has reduced the Christian religion. This is another religion.
Now Luther believed that this was a restatement of the New Testament, especially of Paul. But although his message has the truth of Paul, it’s by no means the full Paul; it is not everything which Paul is. The situation determined what he took from Paul, namely Paul’s conception of defense against legalism – the doctrine of justification by faith. But he did not take in Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit. Of course he did not deny it; there is a lot of it; but that is not decisive. The decisive thing is that a doctrine of the Spirit, of being “in Christ,” of the New Being, is the weak spot in Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith.
In Paul the situation is different. Paul has three main centers in his thinking, which make it not a circle but a triangle. The one is his eschatological consciousness, the certainty that in Christ eschatology is fulfilled and a New Reality has started. The second is the doctrine of the Spirit, which means for him that the Kingdom of God has appeared, that it is here, and there; that the New Being, in which we are, is given to us in Christ. The third point in Paul is the critical defense against legalism: justification by faith.
Luther took all three, of course. But the eschatological point was not really understood. He, in his weariness of the theological fights – you cannot become more tired of anything in the world than of theological controversies, if you always are living it; and even Melanchthon, when he came to death, one of his last words was: “God save me now from the rabies theologorum – from the wrath of the theologians! This is an expression you will understand if you will read the conflicts of the centuries. I just read with great pain, day and night, the doctor’s dissertation of a former pupil, Mr. Thompson, Dr. McNeill’s former assistant, an excellent work in which he describes in more than 300 narrow and large pages the struggle between Melanchthonism and Lutheranism. And if you read that and then see how simple the fundamental statement of Luther was, and how the rabies theologorum produced an almost unimaginable amount of theological disputations on points of which even half-learned theologians as myself would say that they are intolerable, they don’t mean anything any more – then you can see the difference between the prophetic mind and the fanatical theological mind.
Yes, I flagged Melanchthon in my bookmarks on “rabies theologorum” precisely with this crowd in mind, who can’t get through any discussion without calling the other guys names. Cletus VD, kenloses, etc.
As for the substance of your apt Tillich citation, theistic personalism risks becoming what the Old Lights sneered at as “enthusiasm,” emotion over reason and intellect–the latter encompassing the Bible itself, which although for the believer is an emotional experience, is assimilated through the mind.
Again, a structural problem, and why you receive criticism for “fideism,” which [often at least] nullifies whatever faculties God gave you. For as “intellectual” as Aquinas is accused of being, Luther and Calvin get no less cerebral.
[Well, actually they’re far less cerebral than Aquinas, but only in degree, not kind. “On a map like the mind of Aquinas [their minds] were barely a speck.”]
You don’t do too bad when you speak for yourself, Andrew, as long as you borrow the words from someone of Tillich’s quality and not whatever you find lying around in the playpen. Rock on.
LikeLike
But until Bishop Hart rules, of course, people may still read and talk with this creature we have in our midst. The people, however, have spoken. Take note.
I’m done.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted April 5, 2014 at 10:17 pm | Permalink
The only people who Tom gets the better of are those who take the time to attempt to seriously engage him. He just disregards them and in effect gives them the finger. If you can have fun razzing him, join in. Otherwise, just ignore him. I would go Sowers rule on him if it were up to me and see how long he persists with no interaction. He might be sociopathic enough to go on for quite awhile.
I prefer it to the infantile insults, Erik, and the talking about me in the third person. But the uncomfortable light of legitimate questions keeps you awake, so your only alternative is to try to bury them under BS. My original comment stands unaddressed and unmolested, despite the gnawing at its ankles and Andrew’s pathetic little dagger in my back.
BTW, Sowers used to hold his own against you–5 or 6 against one until finally you gave him the death of 1000 sophistries. But you never beat him fair and square.
LikeLike
Tommy, I can’t help it if the breadth of your information is snippets from recently converted prots to catholicism whose apology represents an ignorance of, and manifest misrepresentations of both communions. But even those prot-caths don’t allege that I don’t know, they allege that I’m apostate-Patrick Madrid, or victim of the crises-Preslar or supernaturally deficient as regards the CIP-Cross. You, on the other hand, just play at your faith on the internet. And as your obsession with the trivial and short-term was oddly awarded at a young age it also has damaged you for any sort of profound or meaningful interaction with your faith other than to heckle and throw shells from the peanut gallery. Really, go to mass and work the works the faith of your birth demands of you.
LikeLike
Tom – But the uncomfortable light of legitimate questions keeps you awake
Erik – Tom, you don’t get it. You don’t ask legitimate or troubling questions. You’ve become a tedious bore and an incredible annoyance. Think fingernails on a chalkboard. That’s the problem.
People can disagree and be interesting here. Take Terry Gray, or Darrell Todd Maurina, or Mark McCulley. Even guys like Jeremy Tate are o.k. when they come around.
You, Doug Sowers, and Greg the Terrible are just bores because you are one trick ponies. People get your point after a week and you persist on with it forever, never advancing beyond square one or learning anything new. That’s the problem. It’s a bore.
LikeLike
sean
Posted April 5, 2014 at 10:30 pm | Permalink
work the works the faith of your birth demands of you.
Did you really just repeat the canard that Catholicism teaches “salvation by works?” If so, you have proven my point.
As for the rest of your rant, I confess my eyes glazed over.
LikeLike
Tom,
And your defense of Catholicism is not credible because you yourself do not believe it. That is the first requirement of an apologist.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted April 5, 2014 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
Tom – But the uncomfortable light of legitimate questions keeps you awake
Erik – Tom, you don’t get it. You don’t ask legitimate or troubling questions. You’ve become a tedious bore and an incredible annoyance. Think fingernails on a chalkboard. That’s the problem.
People can disagree and be interesting here. Take Terry Gray, or Darrell Todd Maurina, or Mark McCulley. Even guys like Jeremy Tate are o.k. when they come around.
You treated Maurina abominably, Terry Gray superciliously, and Mark McCulley with toleration as long as he’s dissing the same people you do, and of course his treatment of Bryan Cross would get Darryl thrown out of any public forum. I can’t recall anyone you treated civilly who isn’t within 90% of the party line.
So please, get real, bro.
As for my questions and challenges, I encourage you not to respond and let them stand without being buried by nonresponsive BS. But you can’t ignore them, because they burn.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted April 5, 2014 at 10:39 pm | Permalink
Tom,
And your defense of Catholicism is not credible because you yourself do not believe it. That is the first requirement of an apologist.
Ah, but the best requirement for a lover of the truth. Elsewhere I defend Calvinism against unfair distortions.
LikeLike
Who do you trust, the guy who is published and well recognized?
Or a random internet yahoo, who loves seeing his words on the internet?
Sowers, people.
LikeLike
Tommy, a canard, no. Both direct application and indisputable logical conclusion of stated premises even when granting an abiblical definition of the relevant terms and syncretistic metaphysics, where the greek trumps the semitic, yes and yes. You’re not up to this. Go to mass, ask the priest for the remedial CCD materials.
LikeLike
sean
Posted April 5, 2014 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
Tommy, a canard, no. Both direct application and indisputable logical conclusion of stated premises even when granting an abiblical definition of the relevant terms and syncretistic metaphysics, where the greek trumps the semitic, yes and yes. You’re not up to this. Go to mass, ask the priest for the remedial CCD materials.
Cut the pseudo-scholarly crap and let’s be clear, Sean. Are you saying that Catholicism teaches “salvation by works?” Get on the record.
LikeLike
sean, talking wtih Tom reminds me of my discussions with atheists, both online and in real life. They talk and talk, but when the rubber meets the road, all their theory doesn’t stand the test. In other words, no one lives out the fantasy created by B. Cross, or Bergoglio, in real life. It’s the point of D’s peice, before someone decided he needed some attention and dragged us all through it.
LikeLike
Tom – Elsewhere I defend Calvinism against unfair distortions.
Erik – Please don’t, because you’ll be an ass doing it.
LikeLike
Tommy, I don’t cooperate with grace in my own justification nor do I continue on in my renovation that I might be justified in an ongoing manner nor do I anticipate participating ontologically in the divinity of God. Try mass, tomorrow. Let the priest know the current state of your lapse.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted April 5, 2014 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
Who do you trust, the guy who is published and well recognized?
Or a random internet yahoo, who loves seeing his words on the internet?
Sowers, people.
You’re readable when you at least try to participate in the discussions, Andrew. There are a lot of sloppy intellectual habits here at OLTS: mockery, strawmanning, ad hom, appeal to authority, and you have alternately embraced all of them.
The Tillich thing was good. If you’re going to ignore what anybody else says, at least stick to your own subject!
And going after late great OLTS commentator Doug Sowers was cheap grace. Go after his man Bahnsen, who at least can put a good fight.
[I come down halfway between theonomy and Darryl’s crypto-Anabaptist isolationism. Righteousness still exalts a nation; in the least Luther thought the lack of righteousness would explain Europe being overrun by the Turks, which almost happened. You could look it up.]
[If you look up anything. Or our gentle readers. Just plowing the field, sowing a few seeds.]
LikeLike
Sean,
“I don’t cooperate with grace in my own justification”
So Arminians and non-monergist Protestants believe in works salvation.
“do I continue on in my renovation that I might be justified in an ongoing manner”
i.e. no possibility for the justified to lose salvation. So Arminians and Lutherans believe in works salvation. But you do continue on in your renovation that you might be progressively sanctified in an ongoing manner.
“do I anticipate participating ontologically in the divinity of God.”
If by this you equate theosis with polytheism or mormonism, then sure since that’s not what is meant by theosis. I guess all the talk about union and infusion in sanctification from your circles is just talk then.
And with the above 3 criteria, the historic east/west church for 1000+ years believed in works salvation. Cool.
LikeLike
Tom, I don’t get you, but you responded as desired re:golf.
There may be hope. But I’m nursing a beer and this thread went cold long ago. I was Tillichean before Machenism. But there’s no comparing the latter to the former.
Peace.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted April 5, 2014 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
Tom – Elsewhere I defend Calvinism against unfair distortions.
Erik – Please don’t, because you’ll be an ass doing it.
I don’t think you appreciate how this “theological society” is more likely to repulse than attract people to your religion, Erik. Calling people dirty names.
I assure you I do a more conscientious job. Don’t mock anyone or call them names.
And your defense of Catholicism is not credible because you yourself do not believe it. That is the first requirement of an apologist.
I dunno, Erik. I’d think my defences of Calvinism from the ignorance, lies and slanders that come its way has even more credibility precisely because I don’t believe it. I let it speak for itself, for good or ill, a fair hearing.
And lest my point about Darryl’s Fun House be buried under BS, please do permit me to restate it:
And that’s the fact, Jack. Erik, I mean.
LikeLike
Clete, it’s sweet and all, but Tom plays a big boy on the internet and you’re no Miss Cleo but then maybe you are.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted April 5, 2014 at 11:44 pm | Permalink
Tom, I don’t get you, but you responded as desired re:golf.
There may be hope. But I’m nursing a beer and this thread went cold long ago. I was Tillichean before Machenism. But there’s no comparing the latter to the former.
Peace.
Now THAT I want to hear about why, me brother. The funny thing is that if the JGMachen admirer HL Mencken is supposed to be our lingua franca, I prefer William Jennings Bryan, whom Mencken mocked to the grave—and as y’all know by now, I ain’t no fundamentalist.
Probably the diff between Darryl & me. I think that in the end, Machen is closer to the fundamentalist Bryan than the atheist Mencken. Now THAT’S the debate we should have, Darryl.
And also the diff in our dispositions. I’d rather defend the foolish Christian William Jennings Bryan than that clever humanist HL Mencken. Heh.
LikeLike
Silly Tom. You just need to read Dg’s books.
It’s all in there (read: Ragu).
LikeLike
vd, t, that’s right, you’re the non-xian culture warrior fighting against secularism and immorality. But where will you stand in that great day?
LikeLike
AB and EC, I won’t invoke the rule because Doug was predictable in his opposition. You can’t make vd, t up.
LikeLike
I guess it’s a night in for vd, t. Either LA has lost its charm, or vd, t has.
LikeLike
vd, t, love Erik.
LikeLike
“one trick ponies” or one trick pony tails.
Come on vd, t, tell me how you’re just a kid from Philly and how you know Dick Allen. Make my day.
LikeLike
vd, t, you’re not trying. You’ve yet to learn the joys of Gordon Clark.
LikeLike
“Get on the record.” This from a guy who says the record is whatever?
vd,t, cut the pseudo-spiritual crap and get right with your maker. Hint — he’s not you.
LikeLike
sean, get that? “Righteousness still exalts a nation.” But it’s a righteousness apparently you can find apart from Christ. vd, t can’t abide describing Rome as works righteousness. He wants that badge all for himself.
vd, t, I’m disappointed. I thought you were more coherent than that.
LikeLike
vd, t, if you think OL is so repulsive, why don’t you unrepulse yourself. Show us how to be, oh self-righteous one.
LikeLike
vd, c, at least sean doesn’t believe this:
Embarrassed yet?
LikeLike
vd, t, your lack of brilliance continues to enrapture. You think the notion that Machen is closer to Bryan than Mencken is debatable? When did California become a planet?
LikeLike
(All about) Tom, though this feels like a waste of pixels and kilobytes — one last apology for the Old Life way. Most of us are officers in P&R churches. That’s a deadly serious business. Whatever you think of us, our attachment to our churches and the implications (for us) of “Reformed faith and practice” are very real. Does your church attachment (or lack thereof) often require you to visit people on their deathbeds or address requests for assistance? Counsel doubters? Have you ever been approached by a fellow church officer with a houseful of young children who just learned of his wife’s terminal cancer…and been asked to pray (not to a saint, you understand)? I realize you’re in California, which makes connection with reality difficult enough, but until you get serious about some church you don’t really have any business with God or us.
This is not a recruiting or outreach site. We come here to learn, blow off steam, bitch, compare notes, share our desire for a better, truer church, and to plot against those who would mess the church up. If you don’t like it or don’t get it, or are just peeved that we don’t support your political/cultural program let me suggest that you deal with it or step off.
LikeLike
cw, I actually think vd, t gets the blowing off steam and bitching part. What he seems to be deluded about is the threat that we seem to pose for his culture wars and really really odd grasp of and allegiance to Roman Catholicism. If only OLers came around, then vd, t would win? On Wheel of Fortune?
LikeLike
Cletus,
Sean: “I don’t cooperate with grace in my own justification”
Cletus: So Arminians and non-monergist Protestants believe in works salvation.
Sean: “do I continue on in my renovation that I might be justified in an ongoing manner”
Cletus: i.e. no possibility for the justified to lose salvation. So Arminians and Lutherans believe in works salvation. But you do continue on in your renovation that you might be progressively sanctified in an ongoing manner.
The difference lies in the definition of faith. Despite the fact that we believe synergism is an error, most soteriological synergists, including Lutherans and virtually every Arminian I have known, view justifying faith simply as resting and receiving. It is an empty hand, as it were, and all that it does is receive Christ’s righteousness for justification.
Even those who believe one can lose one’s salvation and come back to it keep this definition of faith. When they commit what you would call a “mortal sin,” the only thing necessary for restoration to a state of salvation is repentance and trust in Christ, which can be done privately in one’s home. For Rome, its repentance, plus true, plus confession to a priest, plus works of satisfaction. Of course there is a loophole for those who can’t get to a priest for some reason, but you better believe the penitent person isn’t going to be forgiven if he can get to confession but doesn’t go, and if having gone, doesn’t do all the works of satisfaction. Moreover, there is only one “mortal sin” and that is the refusal to repent. One is not automatically cut off and sent to hell for having a lustful thought.
Now don’t get me wrong. I believe synergists are inconsistent, and they create an unstable theology. But none of them, at least the ones I have known, believe you merit the ongoing stand in a state of grace whether it is condign merit, congruent merit, or whatever. What is more, they confess assurance of salvation. For all of your attempts to tell me that we don’t merit heaven, the fact that you all deny certainty of salvation and that Ott says no one can know whether he has fulfilled all the conditions for justification actually betrays that. If one really doesn’t merit the state of grace, how in the world can one not be sure you are in a state of grace. Even if we grant conditions besides faith for justification such as baptism and love for God, who doesn’t know that they have been baptized or that they have love for God in their hearts? Moreover, you guys teach that assurance is possible only via a supernatural revelation but c’mon, if Joe the plumber shows up to your RC gathering and tells you that he has received a revelation from God that he has the gift of perseverance, how many of you guys are not going to think he’s crazy.
Soteriological synergism such as we find in Arminianism and Lutheranism might be wrong, but all of them are going to say that faith in Christ, which means abandoning everything else that one might bring for justification—including love—is all that is needed for justification. Rome denies that and adds works. If Christ were really all one needed for justification, then the adult convert would be justified as soon as he turned from his sin and trusted Christ. Baptism would not be necessary to put one in a state of regeneration, or to be granted supernatural faith, or other such nonsense. Even those Protestants who affirm baptismal regeneration typically do so only for infants and all of them affirm that you are justified before baptism as an adult if you have faith. Rome, not so much. Again, its inconsistent, but it’s not adding anything to justification.
And then there is the sacrament of satisfaction, which tells us that mere repentance isn’t enough to be restored to a state of grace. No, you have to do your hail Marys and all that jazz. Yeah, I know the church says those works of satisfaction are only for temporal punishment. But if Christ is really sufficient for salvation, you would not need temporal satisfaction. You wouldn’t need penance. Repentance would truly be enough. But for Rome it isn’t, which is why you have people never knowing if they are justified or not. It’s a turning from sin plus more.
So, while there are similarities between Roman synergism and Arminian/Lutheran synergism, the differences are significant. The fact that the average Christian cannot have assurance shows that Christ is not enough for justification in Roman Catholicism. You’ve got to add something to Him.
LikeLike
As far as abandoning Tillich, Bultmann, etc, for me, I enjoyed reading the aforementioned modern theologians because their stuff was free online and my exposure was still limited. Ultimately, I could never accept their relaxed view of Scripture, so Barth was the closing thing I had. But various OPC ministers INSIDE A CHURCH FAMILY helped me. DG Hart is one I count among my biggest helpers, because as an author, his original writing is fantastic, and his blogging through books (Brad Gregory and Francis Oakley, to name but a few since I started reading here) added valuable insight as I worked through.
I’d say my biggest changes came as a result of being plugged in to local congregations and meeting some of the amazing men who are ministers or professors in convervative Presbyterian. I am in debt to many fine and thoughtful people in the circles I exist in. Too many to name..
I encourage you to listen to sean. He knows.
Peace out.
LikeLike
I have to say I don’t understand the hullabaloo over ‘accusing’ RC’s of works righteousness. Just in the Crossian-RC idea of infused ‘agape’, this ‘agape’ is expressed in our words, deeds, and actions that only sustain interruption in the case of mortal sin. This idea of ‘becoming’ righteous, supernaturally aided or not, is central to the roman idea of justification and is derivative of their particular metaphysical belief that creates a category of infusion which is contrary to the Pauline and Prot category of imputation. This metaphysical orientation is the bedrock of the sacramental system in Rome and thus why they speak freely of an ONGOING justification and claim prots make God a liar by asserting that God declares the guilty JUST on account of an alien, imputed righteousness. The only place this is controversial is in Tommy’s limited, unobservant mind. Now, I have to go to church. Find a mass, Tommy.
LikeLike
Sean, you will be repeating the same statements about justification (and republication) to the same type of mind that refuses to even bother trying to understand
And I don’t even care about them agreeing with my view, just a sign that it has sunk into their skull so that they could see a difference and have a decent conversation about our differences.
Some projects are worthy of pursuing for decades, other don’t deserve five seconds of your life. Hard to sometimes discern which is which.
LikeLike
Sean,
All your words aren’t going to convince Tom that Catholics affirm salvation by works.
He read somewhere online once that they don’t.
Plus, he ain’t doing the works, so where would that leave him?
LikeLike
D.G. – You can’t make vd, t up.
Erik – Indeed…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
“Some people diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance. They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of empathy.
Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR, include:
Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
Envies others and believes others envy him/her
Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic
Other symptoms in addition to the ones defined by DSM-IV-TR include: Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends, has trouble keeping healthy relationships with others, easily hurt or rejected, appears unemotional, and exaggerating special achievements and talents, setting unrealistic goals for himself/herself.
Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, and an over-inflated sense of self-importance that is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders.
In addition to these symptoms, the person may display arrogance, show superiority, and seek power. The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder can be similar to the traits of individuals with strong self-esteem and confidence; differentiation occurs when the underlying psychological structures of these traits are considered pathological. Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others, when in reality they have a fragile self-esteem, cannot handle criticism, and often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. Comments and criticisms about others are vicious from sufferers of NPD, in an attempt to boost their own poor self-esteem.
Another narcissist symptom is a lack of empathy. They are unable to relate, understand, and rationalize the feelings of others. Instead of behaving in a way that shows how they are feeling in the moment, they behave in the way that they feel they are expected to behave or what gives them the most attention.”
LikeLike
http://harpers.org/blog/2014/03/weeklyreview2014-03-25/
“Customs officials in Leipzig were reported to have seized a package of cocaine-filled condoms destined for the Vatican.”
LikeLike
Robert,
It’s sweet and all, but sean plays a big boy on the internet (“I’ve forgotten more of the underlying theology than you’ll ever know”) and you’re no Miss Cleo but then maybe you are.
If Arminians and Lutherans are gospel-denying because they believe in cooperation and/or loss of salvation (which was sean’s insinuation), it doesn’t matter that RCs are more wrong. I would gather you’d say Mormons are more wrong than RCs, that doesn’t make RCs fine.
“how in the world can one not be sure you are in a state of grace.”
RCs can be sure. Why do you think RCs cannot be sure of that? What they cannot be sure of is that they will be in a state of grace at death. Just as a Calvinist cannot be sure they won’t end up having been self-deceiving themselves their supposedly-Christian life and apostasize before death.
Sean,
“I have to say I don’t understand the hullabaloo over ‘accusing’ RC’s of works righteousness.”
The hullabaloo stems if the characterization of “works righteousness” is meant to imply one merits initial justification, or that cooperation and grace are antithetical, or that RCs “earn” heaven, or that natural works merit grace. Perhaps you don’t mean that, but it’s a loaded term.
“Just in the Crossian-RC idea of infused ‘agape’, this ‘agape’ is expressed in our words, deeds, and actions that only sustain interruption in the case of mortal sin. This idea of ‘becoming’ righteous, supernaturally aided or not, is central to the roman idea of justification and is derivative of their particular metaphysical belief that creates a category of infusion which is contrary to the Pauline and Prot category of imputation.”
Yes and many Prots talk about “becoming” righteous in sanctification – but maybe that’s just talk after all and union/infusion in sanctification is just in name only. One becomes “more” perfectly righteous in additional justification, but one is fully righteous at initial justification, so again this has the implication of a half-full tank or something at initial justification that we then have to fill up or something, which is a mischaracterization – the better characterization is a full tank that is growing larger in capacity, but still ever-full. Justified Infants and deathbeds have no works, but still have salvation.
“This metaphysical orientatio is the bedrock of the sacramental system in Rome”
Are the sacraments means of grace in sanctification in Protestantism or not?
“Really, go to mass and work the works the faith of your birth demands of you.”
Really, go to church and work the works the faith of your birth demands of you. You know, obeying the commandments, avoiding negligence and stirring up the grace within you, humbling yourself, confessing your sins, renewing your faith and repentance, attending church, praying, affirming the gospel, being charitable, reading Scripture, participating in sacraments, resisting practice of any habitual sin for too long because otherwise it might indicate you don’t have genuine faith, etc.
LikeLike
vd, c, it’s a strange defense — Protestants are just as bad as Roman Catholics. But at least it’s not a lesson in logic.
LikeLike
Cletus,
RCs can be sure. Why do you think RCs cannot be sure of that? What they cannot be sure of is that they will be in a state of grace at death. Just as a Calvinist cannot be sure they won’t end up having been self-deceiving themselves their supposedly-Christian life and apostasize before death.
The problem is that you say this, but Ott says otherwise. Who am I to believe, you, or a widely recognized RC systematic theologian? If no one can know—apart from a special revelation—that they have met all the conditions necessary for justification, then no one can know. The best you have is a really, really good chance that you’re in a state of grace.
What I am saying is that I know—with the certainty of faith (which BTW, does not exist apart from the ordinary means of grace such as the sacraments and the Word)—that I am fully justified in Christ. Ott explicitly says that such is impossible for you, unless of course you want to tell me you’ve received a special revelation. The whole thing devolves into a earning of one’s justification for the vast majority of RCs. Maybe not for you, in which case you should flee Rome, but that’s not the case for nearly everyone else. There’s a reason why Luther’s quest for assurance sparked the Reformation.
One cannot know if they have met all the conditions for justification, says Ott. What conditions are there besides faith? You can’t know with the certainty of faith that you have faith? C’mon!
LikeLike
Robert, come on, you’ve been around OL long enough to know that “conservative” RC’s don’t take that hierarchy business seriously. They are as opinionated as the worst Protestant.
LikeLike
Clete, next you’ll be telling me you TOO embrace the solas of the reformation, Trent was a big misunderstanding, the law demands a perfect righteousness no one can ever supply, supernaturally aided or otherwise, and you thank God for the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to your account and that He bore the wrath of God in your stead as one of the elect of the Father. BTW, you can have all the existential unionists who wish to eclipse the role of faith and flatten out all the benefits received from Christ that justificaiton becomes just one of many. Please, either you take ’em or I’ll have to eventually route the ones who bother with me and mine.
LikeLike
I’m tired of people picking on followers of J. Smith. Let’s endeavor to make either J-dubs or the Moonines or whomever the next hobgoblin of religious inter-webs. Just a suggestion.
LikeLike
I echo sean, here. It comes to back Trent, which RC’s seem never to want to talk about. Why this discussion continues without simply pointing to the historical Roman documents like Trent, is baffling, at least to me.
LikeLike
AB and Sean,
Elsewhere I’ve been told that Trent was not condemning what it thought were the doctrines of the Reformers but only heresies that no Reformer held, and that it is the modern church that tells us what Trent means. I’ve been told that it’s unclear whether the Tridentine fathers thought they were condemning Protestantism, and that Luther and Calvin’s understanding of RC theology—even the theology of the period in which they lived—was wrong. I guess the fact that so many people were coming to the same conclusions independently should be ignored.
LikeLike
Robert, I’ll tweet the information over to Rolheiser at Oblate School of Theology. I’m sure he’ll interrupt his ‘Portraits of World Mysticism’ symposium and cancel his drama skit on the pig(Luther) rooting through the beautiful garden of medieval roman piety, but imagine the embarrassment he’ll escape. Clete, I’ll make sure to give you all the credit.
LikeLike
I’m with Machen, folks:
LikeLike
D.G. – vd, c, it’s a strange defense — Protestants are just as bad as Roman Catholics. But at least it’s not a lesson in logic.
Erik – What happened to the superior paradigm?
If they are just equally bad I can be Protestant with a lot less baggage than being a Catholic.
LikeLike
haha, Erik.
You need to remember, when dealing with Cletus, you are dealing with a creature who believes he is a TV character. Hardly an authority on RCism, him.
Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Erik,
What happened to the superior paradigm?
If they are just equally bad I can be Protestant with a lot less baggage than being a Catholic.
Hey, go easy on them. It’s hard to argue coherently when on the one hand you criticize Luther for looking for infallible certainty of assurance and then defend Rome for the infallible certainty the Magisterium provides.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s like Calvin said about discerning the secret will of God: worldviewery and paradigm-o-sity are “labyrinths out of which there is no hope of return.”
LikeLike
Interesting how Rome is “One” when it’s convenient for them and “Not One” when it’s financially inconvenient for them to be “One”.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-04-04/victims-object-to-wis-dot-archdiocese-bankruptcy-plan
LikeLike
Robert: Elsewhere I’ve been told that Trent was not condemning what it thought were the doctrines of the Reformers but only heresies that no Reformer held, and that it is the modern church that tells us what Trent means.
In his contributing essay for the book Evangelicals and Catholics Together (not the statement, but the book by that title — I don’t have bibliographical material handy, but I quoted this in my resignation letter to my priest) J. R. Neuhaus makes this point. He says:
Aside from what Calvin and Luther could have or should have done, “the council fathers at Trent” deserve our utmost disdain for anathematizing (with the “full authority of ‘The Church'”) something they didn’t understand. It is even more laughable to me that they did so without even knowing that they didn’t understand, and it is still more laughable that Roman Catholics today (especially informed ones such as Neuhaus) are ok with this and suggest this as a basis for “unity” going forward. .
LikeLike
John,
Thanks for that. (And I am getting your emails BTW, sorry I haven’t responded.) What amazes me is how someone like Neuhaus could convert knowing this. If the people at Trent didn’t understand what they were anathematizing, why take the claim to conciliar infallibility seriously. It’s laughable. But I’ve been told that it doesn’t really matter what the framers of a decree thought, it only matters what the church is saying a decree means today.
Talk about handing your mind over to someone else.
LikeLike
sean,
“Clete, next you’ll be telling me you TOO embrace the solas of the reformation, Trent was a big misunderstanding, the law demands a perfect righteousness no one can ever supply, supernaturally aided or otherwise, and you thank God for the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to your account and that He bore the wrath of God in your stead as one of the elect of the Father.”
None of this follows from what I said to you. What I said about RCism does not necessitate extra nos imputation (and its attendant doctrines) or mean it’s compatible with RCism/Trent, obviously.
“BTW, you can have all the existential unionists who wish to eclipse the role of faith and flatten out all the benefits received from Christ that justificaiton becomes just one of many.”
Unionists do not make union/infusion eclipse faith, just as RCism’s doctrines of infused righteousness and faith formed by love does not eclipse faith. This again skirts the issue. You were railing against union and becoming more righteous and such. Yet most of your tradition affirms at least some kind of union and becoming more righteous in sanctification. The way you characterize it, it’s just some type of ever-extrinsic “union” that is in name only and emptied of all meaning.
Robert,
“One cannot know if they have met all the conditions for justification, says Ott. What conditions are there besides faith? You can’t know with the certainty of faith that you have faith? C’mon!”
If your read of Ott was correct, you’d basically be saying no RC could know they should partake of the Eucharist – a condition of which is that you’re in a state of grace. Or similarly that no RC can know they were forgiven of mortal sin after confession, or know whether or not they should be going to confession because they are not in a state of grace. No RC acts that way.
“Elsewhere I’ve been told that Trent was not condemning what it thought were the doctrines of the Reformers but only heresies that no Reformer held, and that it is the modern church that tells us what Trent means. ”
I’m a bit ambivalent/agnostic on that question, but you yourself have said Trent was condemning positions the Reformers did not hold and it didn’t understand them, and John seems to endorse his citation of Neuhaus. So it escapes me why you would disagree with someone agreeing with your position.
LikeLike
“None of this follows from what I said to you.”
“union” that is in name only and emptied of all meaning.”
Ugh, it’s like arguing with some woman. I give, whatever you say. Yes, I’ll go to counseling, just stop.
But really, take all the unionists who want to reorder the ordo, take em all. Start with the Rick Phillips guy and just keep on picking em up as you go along. Please. And ‘some kind of union” does not equal infusion. Again, we don’t share a metaphysical foundation, so, when you use the terminology, it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
LikeLike
James,
If your read of Ott was correct, you’d basically be saying no RC could know they should partake of the Eucharist – a condition of which is that you’re in a state of grace. Or similarly that no RC can know they were forgiven of mortal sin after confession, or know whether or not they should be going to confession because they are not in a state of grace. No RC acts that way.
Except for Mr. Luther, of course…
That’s just an evasion. Ott says we can’t know with certainty of faith that we haven’t fulfilled all things necessary for justification. So either there is something more than faith, baptism, and being free of mortal sin, or we can’t know if we’ve done those three things. This is the problem, and either way it’s not good for rome. On the first side you get perilously close to earning justification (or at least earning the continuance in the state of grace), in the final analysis, by what we do. On the second side, people forget they’ve been baptized et al. Which is it? And why is the almost universal testimony of RC converts to Protestantism the fact that they could never know if they were saved even after doing all that is supposed to be required?
I’m a bit ambivalent/agnostic on that question, but you yourself have said Trent was condemning positions the Reformers did not hold and it didn’t understand them, and John seems to endorse his citation of Neuhaus. So it escapes me why you would disagree with someone agreeing with your position.
I’m not disagreeing with Neuhaus. I don’t think Trent knew what it was condemning when it condemned it. The problem is that you have a supposedly infallible council condemning a caricature of the Protestant position even while this same council thought is was condemning the actual Protestant position. How you retain ecclesiastical infallibility if that is the case I don’t know. At the very least, you’re left with infallible statements but you are never sure if Rome is actually reading them rightly. And this is supposed to be better than Protestantism??
LikeLike
Robert,
“Ott says we can’t know with certainty of faith that we haven’t fulfilled all things necessary for justification.”
It’s not an evasion to interpret RC theologians within the context of other teachings of the faith. The things I outlined about confession and eucharist are standard points of RC teaching. I doubt Ott would have disagreed – you’re hanging your entire argument on a particular theologian’s choice of formulation.
“And why is the almost universal testimony of RC converts to Protestantism the fact that they could never know if they were saved even after doing all that is supposed to be required?”
Because they either think they do have to “earn” salvation and fill up the partially empty tank (which Trent denies in how it characterizes initial justification), or they are referring to that they could never know they would die in a state of grace. If the latter, how Protestantism gives them any more assurance or advantage escapes me given the teachings on self-deception.
“I don’t think Trent knew what it was condemning when it condemned it.”
Sean thinks your out to lunch apparently then.
“The problem is that you have a supposedly infallible council condemning a caricature of the Protestant position even while this same council thought is was condemning the actual Protestant position.”
That’s not a problem. Councils define doctrine. Trent defined doctrine. Whether all the doctrine defined was in response to genuine Protestant teaching is beside the point. If some Reformer said “hey that canon anathemized a postion not held by me!” so what? The condemnation of that position and/or affirmation of the opposing position still holds and is doctrine, regardless of whether it was actually held by anybody.
LikeLike
” Councils define doctrine. Trent defined doctrine. Whether all the doctrine defined was in response to genuine Protestant teaching is beside the point. If some Reformer said “hey that canon anathemized a postion not held by me!” so what? The condemnation of that position and/or affirmation of the opposing position still holds and is doctrine, regardless of whether it was actually held by anybody.”
Wow, now we have historical councils that are ahistorical and rooted in myth. Wait for me,…… I’m just reaching for my Bultmann. Hist, historical, historical jesus, there it is, wait, wait,,,,,,,,yep, not so much. Clete, you may apply it elsewhere but you got your Vat II working.
LikeLike
Cletus,
It’s not an evasion to interpret RC theologians within the context of other teachings of the faith. The things I outlined about confession and eucharist are standard points of RC teaching. I doubt Ott would have disagreed – you’re hanging your entire argument on a particular theologian’s choice of formulation.
You could just say Ott was wrong. Or you could admit that your present assurance is no better than a high moral certainty because there is always something that could have been left undone. If you drop dead of a heart attack right this second, where are you going?
All I have to go by is what Ott actually wrote, and Ott is a fairly standard work.
That’s not a problem. Councils define doctrine. Trent defined doctrine. Whether all the doctrine defined was in response to genuine Protestant teaching is beside the point. If some Reformer said “hey that canon anathemized a postion not held by me!” so what? The condemnation of that position and/or affirmation of the opposing position still holds and is doctrine, regardless of whether it was actually held by anybody.
So it makes no difference if Trent thought it was condemning Protestantism but actually misunderstood what it was condemning. That’s credulity pure and simple. How do you know if the present Magisterium is getting anything right if it cannot necessarily figure out the heresy it is opposing?
LikeLike
Robert,
Sure, perhaps Ott is wrong. Or perhaps you’re misreading him since as you say, he is a fairly standard work. You can bolster your case if you find something in his work that opposes that only those in a state of grace are to partake of the eucharist, that those who confess their mortal sins are in a state of grace, or that those who aren’t in a state of grace should go to confession. All 3 of those practices presuppose one can know one is in or is not in a state of grace. But somehow I doubt you’ll find that and will find rather the opposite affirmed.
“So it makes no difference if Trent thought it was condemning Protestantism but actually misunderstood what it was condemning. That’s credulity pure and simple. How do you know if the present Magisterium is getting anything right if it cannot necessarily figure out the heresy it is opposing?”
How in the world does the latter follow from your premise. Protestantism was not a unified front in all doctrine. Trent affirmed things like infused righteousness, merit, faith formed by love, cooperation in justification, operative/cooperative grace, loss of salvation, mortal/venial sin, sacraments, etc. All of these are doctrine. Some Protestants may have denied some of these, some may have not (as we already covered a bit above with cooperation and loss of salvation). Trent was aware of the detailed discussions at Regensburg on justification between Protestants and RCs. And the fact that Protestants still rail against things like Benedict’s statement on sola fide (itself reflected by some of the Tridentine fathers in their discussions examining the Protestant positions) show that Trent still certainly got some things right in how it characterized and responded to the Protestant position.
LikeLike
Clete, this is like being back in Fr. Pachence’s class. It was unified and particular enough for Rome to launch the, wait for it, COUNTER REFORMATION, anchored in the propositions and anathemas detailed at the council of Trent. Wait, now tell me to pay a nickel and make my choice and my trip down the nostalgia trail will be complete.
LikeLike
Sean,
Yes, some things are common. Such as the denial of extra nos imputation as the sole formal cause of justification. Or other doctrines that are not directly tied to justification; the counter reformation wasn’t just concerned with intricacies of justification. But on other doctrines there was not a unified common front.
LikeLike
Cletus,
You can bolster your case if you find something in his work that opposes that only those in a state of grace are to partake of the eucharist, that those who confess their mortal sins are in a state of grace, or that those who aren’t in a state of grace should go to confession. All 3 of those practices presuppose one can know one is in or is not in a state of grace. But somehow I doubt you’ll find that and will find rather the opposite affirmed.
Or I can quote Ott where he says that one cannot be sure if one is in a state of grace. What’s helpful is that he also quotes Trent as affirming that:
Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace (De fide.)
Against the teaching of the Reformers, that the justified possess certainty of faith which excludes all doubts about their justification, the Council of Trent declared: “If one considers his own weakness and his defective disposition, he may well be fearful and anxious as to his state of grace, as nobody knows with the certainty of faith, which permits of no error, that he has achieved the grace of God.”
Own Trent, my man. You can’t know if you are in a state of grace or not. You can be pretty sure, maybe even fairly certain, but you can’t know it.
There’s a reason why Luther, after doing all that he was supposed to, could not find assurance. It’s not possible. The best you can hope for is really good odds, it seems.
LikeLike
Clete, that ‘yes, ‘SOME THINGS’ is not quite Pachence, but he’d be proud of the effort. Outside of the opposition to soteriological formulations, which, never mind those,….. we can chalk up the reaffirmation of the sacramental system, religious orders, priestly charism, magisterial authority, you know just adiaphora kind of things.
LikeLike
But Clete, now we’re just side-stepping Vat II. Vat II, now there’s a piece of work. We’re imbibing higher critical methods of bible interpretation, opening up the charism of the Church to a formal engagement of the Lay Charism, emphasizing pastoral interpretation that accommodates modernity and yet unseen modernity, conciliar reforms seeking to revise and ‘develop’ the magisterial authority away from it’s medieval structure. The raising of the novus ordo as normative and ordinary, no more latin chanting your way into the transcendent god. It’s a brave new world after 1965. Scared the heck out of Pope Paul, he was certain the devil was in the details but Francis says it’s all ok, we need to get on with those reforms left undone. I haven’t heard Francis do the ‘continuity but not rupture’ dance and then leave the building, but there’s time yet.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Or I can quote Ott where he says that one cannot be sure if one is in a state of grace. What’s helpful is that he also quotes Trent as affirming that:”
Yes and you can quote Ott saying:
“The impossiblity of the certainty of faith, however, by no means excludes a high moral certainty by the testimony of conscience.”
He is saying we cannot rest on metaphysical certainty. Which is what Trent says:
“Although it is necessary to believe that sins are neither forgiven, nor ever have been forgiven, except gratuitously by divine mercy for Christ’s sake, yet it must not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the forgiveness of his sins and rests on that alone, since among heretics and schismatics this vain confidence, remote from all piety, may exist, indeed in our own troubled times does exist, and is preached against the Catholic Church with vigorous opposition.”
“You can be pretty sure, maybe even fairly certain, but you can’t know it.”
I still fail to see how Protestantism is to offer any advantage here in the way you are characterizing. You can’t know you won’t apostasize before death and have just been self-deluded. You can be pretty sure you won’t, maybe even fairly certain, but you can’t know it, unless you know the future. You can’t even be sure in the present, since again you may just be deceiving yourself and your future apostasy would demonstrate that, so how Protestantism is to offer some type of infallible assurance or knowledge escapes me.
sean,
“But Clete, now we’re just side-stepping Vat II. ”
First we’re not talking about Trent and justification enough. Now we just jump around to Vat2 and talking about things like novus ordo and modernism. Okay. Not really interested in spaghetti-throwing see-what-sticks approaches.
LikeLike
No spaghetti throwing, Clete. I’m just quicker and know more than you. Don’t fret, you aren’t the first.
LikeLike
Does Cletus worry about purgatory?
Remember, all he is doing is:
LikeLike
Sean,
Please explain to me how:
“But Clete, now we’re just side-stepping Vat II. Vat II, now there’s a piece of work. We’re imbibing higher critical methods of bible interpretation, opening up the charism of the Church to a formal engagement of the Lay Charism, emphasizing pastoral interpretation that accommodates modernity and yet unseen modernity, conciliar reforms seeking to revise and ‘develop’ the magisterial authority away from it’s medieval structure. The raising of the novus ordo as normative and ordinary, no more latin chanting your way into the transcendent god. It’s a brave new world after 1965. Scared the heck out of Pope Paul, he was certain the devil was in the details but Francis says it’s all ok, we need to get on with those reforms left undone. I haven’t heard Francis do the ‘continuity but not rupture’ dance and then leave the building, but there’s time yet.”
is relevant to the preceding discussion on Trent and justification, your talk of “works salvation”, and your double-standards with non-Calvinist Protestants and the gospel. If you’re done talking about that and just want to do your Vat2-Francis stuff yet again, fine, but if not, maybe you have slightly more compelling interaction to offer than you have thus far.
LikeLike
Clete, how can I compete with your ahistorical, myth inspired council of Trent repudiating that which was not. I mean, I think I already expressed my complete amazement and landed you solidly in the company of one of my RC profs of yesteryear. Fr. Pachence is no dummy, he even contributed to the catholic encyclopedia and chaired any number of Bahai faith type ecumenical, comparative religion symposiums. You’re no Pachence, but you inspired recollection. And again when you work out the the difference between union and infusion and figure out which side of Trent you’re on and how you reconcile that with Vat II assertions of separated brethren and ‘can’t we all get along’ and the movement of God outside the church militant, without anachronistic renderings of anathema, that actually reconcile with protestant martrydom of the time, well, ring the bell.
LikeLike
Sean,
“Clete, how can I compete with your ahistorical, myth inspired council of Trent repudiating that which was not.”
As I said I am agnostic on the question whether Trent exhaustively and accurately reflected the various strands of Protestant theology it was responding to. I am not agnostic on the fact that it defined many doctrines that Protestantism is united in opposing, so obviously it at least got some things right in how it was characterizing Protestant doctrine. So saying I believe it is ahistorical and myth inspired is a caricature.
“And again when you work out the the difference between union and infusion and figure out which side of Trent you’re on”
I’m quite familiar with the difference between RC notions of infusion/union compared to Protestant notions of same. I was pointing out your reductionistic criticism of “becoming” righteous does not gel with much of your tradition’s view on participation/union/infusion in sanctification. I was not saying Protestants who hold to union/infusion in sanctification therefore affirm Trent’s ideas on that topic. You were free to add qualifiers to your rather generalized and ambiguous statement, but you just double-downed.
“and how you reconcile that with Vat II assertions of separated brethren and ‘can’t we all get along’ and the movement of God outside the church militant, without anachronistic renderings of anathema, that actually reconcile with protestant martrydom of the time”
That might have indeed been relevant had you brought that up in your original post. But you wrote:
““But Clete, now we’re just side-stepping Vat II. Vat II, now there’s a piece of work. We’re imbibing higher critical methods of bible interpretation, opening up the charism of the Church to a formal engagement of the Lay Charism, emphasizing pastoral interpretation that accommodates modernity and yet unseen modernity, conciliar reforms seeking to revise and ‘develop’ the magisterial authority away from it’s medieval structure. The raising of the novus ordo as normative and ordinary, no more latin chanting your way into the transcendent god. It’s a brave new world after 1965. Scared the heck out of Pope Paul, he was certain the devil was in the details but Francis says it’s all ok, we need to get on with those reforms left undone. I haven’t heard Francis do the ‘continuity but not rupture’ dance and then leave the building, but there’s time yet.””
There is nothing there that touches on separated brethren or the like. That’s why I said it had little to no bearing on Trent and justification discussion that preceded it.
LikeLike
Clete, spare me the schoolmarm routine. You’re ‘agnostic’ on Trent but I’M ambiguous. Brilliant. You equated union with infusion but I FAILED to put in the qualifiers. Btw, union as it relates to sanctification is little more than sanctification by faith. Same as justification. And that’s not the ‘charity-infused’ sort. The breadth of your ignorance here, is beyond the medium of the combox. Unless you’re purposeful in your obfuscation, you choose. Until, you do better I’ll let you know what’s relevant. I’ve offered up to you, NOT IN THE TRADITION,BTW, those who make the renovative move with existential union, again, aconfessional and thus eclipse faith and flatten the logical priority of justification to sanctification. Have them, please.
LikeLike
sean,
“union as it relates to sanctification is little more than sanctification by faith. Same as justification.”
Do you become more righteous or not in progressive sanctification?
“And that’s not the ‘charity-infused’ sort.”
Do you have inherent, but inchoate, righteousness in progressive sanctification or not? Is charity and hope poured into your heart in sanctification following justification or not? Are you claiming no lights from your tradition in the past have affirmed inherent and infused righteousness in sanctification?
” I’ve offered up to you, NOT IN THE TRADITION,BTW, those who make the renovative move with existential union, again, aconfessional and thus eclipse faith and flatten the logical priority of justification to sanctification.”
Does the tradition affirm one grows in inherent righteous/becomes more righteous in progressive sanctification or not? Btw, are those you offered also gospel-deniers like Lutherans and Arminians according to your previous statements?
LikeLike
Cletus, remind me, have you read this?
We can chat at my blog, to your heart’s content. FYI..
LikeLike
Sean, vd, c has been hitting the “context” bourbon pretty hard of late.
LikeLike
vd, c, as I say, it’s a strange defense, after receiving various jabs and hooks to the noggin’, to ask questions. I wouldn’t get into a debate or knife fight with sean. Do you have a clue?
LikeLike
Darryl,
If by jabs and hooks you mean evasion and goalpost shifting, then yeah I guess I don’t have a clue. I’m still waiting for the knife to come out, rather than self-congratulatory talk about having been in seminary and forgetting more theology than tom will ever know (you know all that knowledge that results in saying scholarly things like “works righteousness/salvation” or nuking Protestant brethren and broad swaths of historical christianity with uncareful statements about cooperation and loss of salvation). That’s part of the point of the questions.
Robert, for all our disagreements, at least offers substantive interaction.
LikeLike
Darryl, Cletus gave you his answer.
Clueless.
LikeLike
Memo to papists of all stripes and flavors: You are tiresome, tedious, and terribly unappealing. Go be good cathlicks. Or just go away.
LikeLike
Chorts,
Agreed.
When will people allow us to mock & grouse in peace?
LikeLike
Clete,
Imagine what could happen if you focused all your energy on getting Tom to go to church.
LikeLike
Clete, just the category deficiency you exhibit would take an entire semester. You’re agnostic on Trent, but you’re going to moderate the bounds of the RC-Prot debate? Well, $#@% me. You have no idea of your own thomistic metaphysics but your going to trade on something you gleaned in a corner about 20th century prot BT as regards the ordo and union without a CLUE as to the prot confessional tradition and try and corner me? Go fish. You have no idea, and by way of self-proclaimed agnosticism, bail out of reconciling Trent to Vat II, but I’m the presumptuous and self-congratulatory one?! Oh, Okay. Yes, Robert is nicer and more accommodating but the beat down is no less thorough.
LikeLike
Clete’s booby prize.
LikeLike
vd, c, I do believe that development of doctrine was the original goal-post shifting and it sure looks to me like sean has your number on the way you sometimes appeal to the magisterium when its convenient and don’t when it’s not. All the parallels between Rome and Protestantism on salvation are really lame when it comes to your tradition’s own claims of superiority.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted April 7, 2014 at 5:55 am | Permalink
vd, c, it’s a strange defense — Protestants are just as bad as Roman Catholics. But at least it’s not a lesson in logic..
D. G. Hart
Posted April 7, 2014 at 7:08 am | Permalink
Robert, come on, you’ve been around OL long enough to know that “conservative” RC’s don’t take that hierarchy business seriously. They are as opinionated as the worst Protestant.
OMG. I keep stopping by for the last time but our Old Life host never fails to fail–even at his own game.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted April 5, 2014 at 10:17 pm | Permalink
The only people who Tom gets the better of are those who take the time to attempt to seriously engage him
Truth, Erik. Those precious sincere moments here at Old Life, despite itself. But I don’t think of it as getting the better of you. More like getting to the best of us both. Cheers, mate.
LikeLike
AB
Posted April 7, 2014 at 11:46 pm | Permalink
Oh Tommy. Here, you earned it.
Whose approval are you seeking with this chickenspit, Andrew? Darryl’s? The 6 people who compose his choir and congregation?
They laugh at you. You’re not in their club, you poor fool. They let you attack me and do their dirty work but they never actually talk to you or with you. You still don’t get the game, Ponyboy. They’re the Socs, not me.
LikeLike
Sean,
This is clearly going nowhere, but just to clarify my position as we turn out the lights.
“You’re agnostic on Trent, but you’re going to moderate the bounds of the RC-Prot debate?”
I’m not moderating the bounds on anything. I’m saying Trent doesn’t teach “works righteousness/salvation” or whatever you were saying, and I’m hardly alone on that – you don’t need to take my word for it. And no, people didn’t just start saying that after Vat2 – Pohle, Garrigou-Lagrange, Newman, etc echo same. And the CCC didn’t rewrite Trent, nor did Benedict when he gave his statement on faith alone. The “did Trent accurately reflect Protestant doctrine x” has no bearing on that question and is a continual red herring. My (brief) characterization/position does not necessitate Trent being some big misunderstanding or that Neuhaus is right – and thinking Neuhaus is wrong does not necessitate your characterization. Not difficult.
“bail out of reconciling Trent to Vat II”
Because it again is irrelevant. We’re talking about justification and Trent and you jump to novus ordo and latin chanting and biblical hermeneutics. Give me a break.
“but I’m the presumptuous and self-congratulatory one?!”
Let’s see….
“Robert is nicer and more accommodating but the beat down is no less thorough.”
Yes. Your “beat down” has consisted of assertions and chest-thumping and caricatures. Not impressive. Robert and others here at least offer arguments.
“without a CLUE”
Yes I’m clearly ignorant. And my questions I guess require a thesis to answer. But this is coming from the guy who characterizes RCism as “works righteousness” (hey, what’s the hullabaloo about man) and that cooperation in justification is gospel-denying. I know, I know, we need to talk about Francis again. Yawn.
Darryl,
“All the parallels between Rome and Protestantism on salvation are really lame when it comes to your tradition’s own claims of superiority”
The parallels were to show the flaws of sean’s drive-by potshots. It wasn’t meant as some magical encompassing positive case for RC soteriology. If they had been offered to serve that purpose, that would indeed be lame.
LikeLike
CVD: The “did Trent accurately reflect Protestant doctrine x” has no bearing on that question and is a continual red herring.
You’re giving Sean heck over calling Trent’s doctrine “works righteousness” (and, if you assume a baptized person, it does come down to your own supposedly “grace-assisted” behavior), whereas, you are giving Trent a pass for misrepresenting — getting wrong — Protestant doctrines that it anathematized.
Hypocrite. Trent gets a pass from you for the untold misery it caused with its actions — supposedly based on a “misunderstanding” — which led to the binding of people [Roman Catholic people] for centuries to the Tridentine forms of activity, a language that they couldn’t understand — and a list of “you gotta do this, and you gotta do that, and in this and that particular way” — all of which were Medieval and NOT Christian.
LikeLike
vd, t, Your God?
LikeLike
vd, c, actually, it is not clear that you understand Trent or Protestantism. You are in the habit (like John Frame) of showing how one thing (Mary, prayers to saints) is like another thing (Jesus, asking saints to pray to Jesus). You’re doing it again. Doesn’t make you believable.
LikeLike
John Bugay
Posted April 8, 2014 at 4:35 am | Permalink
CVD: The “did Trent accurately reflect Protestant doctrine x” has no bearing on that question and is a continual red herring.
You’re giving Sean heck over calling Trent’s doctrine “works righteousness” (and, if you assume a baptized person, it does come down to your own supposedly “grace-assisted” behavior), whereas, you are giving Trent a pass for misrepresenting — getting wrong — Protestant doctrines that it anathematized.
You keep saying that. Ex-catholic Sean argues that Catholicism teaches salvation by works, but he knows as little about Catholicism now as when he left it.
Hypocrite. Trent gets a pass from you for the untold misery it caused with its actions — supposedly based on a “misunderstanding” — which led to the binding of people [Roman Catholic people] for centuries to the Tridentine forms of activity, a language that they couldn’t understand
You keep saying that too, Mr. Bugay, as though it will make it true. Catholicism–the pre-Reformation church–didn’t hide the Gospel behind the Latin. They did fear that idiots would translate it everywhichway and make a hash of it. They were right, you know—“Sola scriptura” has amounted to theological chaos. There is no such thing as “Protestantism” and with 100+ varieties itself, “Calvinism” is a descriptive term, not a definitive one.
Whose Calvinism is it, anyway? Yours? Kuyper’s? Driscoll’s? David Norse’s?
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/religion/Phillys_first_gay_Presbyterian.html
Good luck with all that, bro. Trent is the least of the Reformed faith’s problems.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted April 8, 2014 at 5:58 am | Permalink
vd, t, Your God?
Dr. Pottymouth–same as yours, more or less.
LikeLike
Tom,
Whose Calvinism is it, anyway? Yours? Kuyper’s? Driscoll’s? David Norse’s?
Whose RC is it, anyway? Nancy Pelosi’s? Mother Teresa’s? Ratzinger’s? Boston College’s?
LikeLike
Hi Robert, I understand, that’s no problem. You said:
I agree with you, this sort of thing is laughable. Essentially, they are continuing to write a “Bible” (of Roman Catholic “Tradition”) — but nobody really needs to know what it says or what it means; only that the Roman Magisterium has the ability to manipulate it; and for guys like CVD, what’s important is “we can support the Magisterium; they’ve never contradicted Catholic Dogma”.
A few years ago a very serious writer named Frank Ramirez (handle “Kepha”) had a blog which he entitled “Conscious Faith”.
And he left Rome precisely for this reason (among others I would think): Rome has so twisted its accounting of itself to make only “the doctrines” “infallible”. It doesn’t matter what the “true meaning” of a thing is, nor that it is true or genuine. Only that it is “authoritative”.
It’s no wonder people are leaving in droves. And it’s no wonder the “new atheists” are getting so much traction against “organized religion”.
LikeLike
Tom: .You keep saying that too, Mr. Bugay, as though it will make it true.
Tom — if you consider that Rome is not what it says it is (and that is the contention here), then no amount of carping about how bad Protestantism improve’s Rome’s situation.
Catholicism–the pre-Reformation church–didn’t hide the Gospel behind the Latin. They did fear that idiots would translate it everywhichway and make a hash of it.
There were idiots translating things everywhichway – consider the Dominicans vs the Franciscans, the papalists vs the conciliarists, Scotus vs Aquinas, Ockham vs the papacy, Gregory Biel and his genuine semi-Pelagianism. To borrow a phrase, “whose Catholicism was it anyway?”
Guys like Nicholas of Cusa — who began figuring out how much of Roman Catholicism was built on forgeries — did a tremendous service. And the Reformers merely followed in dismantling Rome’s heap of lies. (Ask yourself how much of Pseudo-Dionysius — a sixth century writer claiming first-century authority — got into “Summa Theologica”?)
They were right, you know—”Sola scriptura” has amounted to theological chaos.
At least the discussions were biblically-based
There is no such thing as “Protestantism” and with 100+ varieties itself, “Calvinism” is a descriptive term, not a definitive one.
Whose Calvinism is it, anyway? Yours? Kuyper’s? Driscoll’s? David Norse’s?
I’m on record in the comments over at CTC as saying this:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/#comment-79644
Rome, in fact, is trying to re-build the Tower of Babel, a human city the purpose of which was to “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
In fact, it’s God who scattered them. And it’s God who is scattering the Roman Catholics in our day.
The real thing isn’t having the “unified authority”. The real thing, in God’s eyes is “turn and be healed” — that’s the most oft-quoted OT verse in the NT, and ironically, only individuals can do that.
God cares about the individuals. He doesn’t care about the “unified authority”. He opposes such things, in fact.
So “whose Calvinism is it?” It’s God’s Calvinism. That’s about as “definitive” as it gets.
LikeLike
Tom, don’t you see? Anyone with an internet cconnection can post anything anytime. What is your reason for visiting this website? And posting?
Tom?
LikeLike
The only words worth reading out here regard the issues and not the persons here. Tom believes he is on some crusade to save Darryl, or something. My only point in talking to him is to get him to church. I should have known since he showed up his silly my idea is.
Next.
LikeLike
CVD, you accuse Sean of the spaghetti against the wall, to see if it’s sticky approach, when you are just as bad, if not worse. Most good online religious discussion forums don’t accept 1) the Romish/Protestant debate; or 2) anonymous commenters. The fact is, you may make a good point on occasion, but who is going go with a guy who posts as Cletus van Damme? If you believe what you are saying, post as you, and take credit. Otherwise, your words are pretty much meaninglessness, and you’re wasting your own precious time. Take it or leave it, bud. Peace.
LikeLike
As an example, CvD.
LikeLike
vd, t, and the American Founding may be the least of yours:
I believe the Simpsonian term is “doh”!
LikeLike
Ah, the mini tempest in a teapot carries on. I see that CVD, still hasn’t tried to figure out how union is different from infusion, but is certain that because protestantism has a category of sanctification it must be similar. I do see some traction however with an agnosticism toward Trent and a complete bewilderment as to how and why inherent righteousness, labeled charity infused or agape, whichever floats your boat, is somehow works-righteousness, in the Pauline, sacred scripture, kind of way.
No grappling with the creaturely situation in Eden, the effects of the fall, the underlying difference on the requirements of the law or creator-creature distinctions that remain, even in glorification. No first and last adam considerations, no sole mediatorial role of Christ reconciling with veneration, adoration, supplication of the saints or Mary and of course no grappling with anathemas and Vat II ‘developments’ other than, “I’m agnostic toward Trent”. Yet, you’re still insistent that you’re gonna bring me to your bar and pepper me, and without due compensation, expect me to pedantically lay this out for you, while posturing that you’re knowledgeable on things protestant and RC. Good luck with that.
Tommy, what did the priest tell you about your indolence when you went to mass on sunday?
LikeLike
Tom – I keep stopping by for the last time
Erik – Stop getting our hopes up.
LikeLike
Tom – They let you attack me and do their dirty work but they never actually talk to you or with you.
Erik – I’ve enjoyed Andrew’s ministry to Tom.
LikeLike
Nice!
LikeLike
Tom – You keep saying that. Ex-catholic Sean argues that Catholicism teaches salvation by works, but he knows as little about Catholicism now as when he left it.
Erik – Blame Catholic Seminary.
LikeLike
Tom gets mean late at night when he’s been sucking back grandpa’s after shave.
LikeLike
Where’s Dr. Phil when we need him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
LikeLike
Here’s the lowdown on Andrew:
Most of the frequent contributors here are snarky, sarcastic, and wry, with just a dash of malevolence thrown in.
Andrew is just nice.
That’s not a sin (it’s the opposite of a sin). So Andrew is always welcome to comment here, just not too much.
LikeLike
Thanks, Erik.
Speaking of Dr. Phil, someone at lunch yesterday shared this nugget, as we talked about Oprah inspired spinoffs:
We had a good laugh trying to determine the meaning of that little diddy.
Good times, my rival for most comments at OL. Peace.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s not so much malevolence as an unwillingness to catechize Scott Hahn converts in a combox in a faith left years ago and then watch as they selectively parse the replies and spin the answer toward their predetermined end. This isn’t a pursuit of ‘truth’ it’s a game, and as long as that holds they’ll have to war for every inch. So far, I’m not compelled to grant their first move.
LikeLike
TVD: They laugh at you. You’re not in their club, you poor fool. They let you attack me and do their dirty work but they never actually talk to you or with you. You still don’t get the game, Ponyboy. They’re the Socs, not me
Almost became incontinent laughing at TVD’s latest little game playing on here…
He missed his chance to be an exile from Moscow around 1912.
LikeLike
Sean,
It’s Christian malevolence of course.
There is something to be said for a strong response to fools and wolves.
LikeLike
Erik:
Rebuke the swine.
Chase away the dogs.
Direct head shot for the wolves.
LikeLike
There’s also a fundamental difference between defending your own turf and going onto other people’s turf and being a prick.
Back in my Facebook days I would go to the Iowa Democrats website and give them grief. That was fun for about a week, and then I realized I was just being a jerk.
Tom has been doing this latter exercise here for over a year. Cletus for several months. Cletus is more bearable than Tom, though, because at least he’s walking the talk.
LikeLike
Kent, thanks as well. It’a been months since I took anything he says, seriously. Half the time, I think he’s drunk..
LikeLike
I had my first blog, and Tom was my first commenter. I’ll never forget how he treated me there. I took the site down, and created a new one. I still have his entire rant and attack on me. It’s comical.
Tom, you can fool people once. Shame on you. You fool us twice? Shame on us.
Just give up, and soon. Please.
LikeLike
Erik,
Tom has been doing this latter exercise here for over a year. Cletus for several months. Cletus is more bearable than Tom, though, because at least he’s walking the talk.
Actually, Cletus and Tom don’t even belong in the same category. Cletus defends something to which He belongs. Plus he was helpful with that Greg guy. Tom, well, I’m not sure what he’s out to accomplish.
LikeLike
Tom can be amusing sometimes.
LikeLike
Robt, like the atheists I argued with in Facebook, he’s out to tear down what we seek to build. Think Noah..
Anything can be attacked. He’s against 2k and wants Darryl to be a culture warrior. Easy as pie.
LikeLike
When Greg was here I was thankful for Rabies shots & Vicodin.
LikeLike
Erik, he told me I was a backslider.
Try to imagine DGH, wondering who will show up to say what. It’s like a sport, at some point. Here’s hoping even G. the Terrible comes back to show us who’s who.
LikeLike
Andrew – Here’s hoping even G. the Terrible comes back to show us who’s who.
Erik – No.
LikeLike
Sean,
“still hasn’t tried to figure out how union is different from infusion, but is certain that because protestantism has a category of sanctification it must be similar. ”
Lights of your tradition have held to infused/inherent righteousness. That does not mean they have held to RC notion of infusion – that would be absurd, nor have I ever said so. If you hold that you believe in union, but also no notion of infused or inherent righteousness whatsoever, then that’s interesting. If you do hold to some notion of it, then everything I’ve said previously remains untouched.
“complete bewilderment as to how and why inherent righteousness, labeled charity infused or agape, whichever floats your boat, is somehow works-righteousness, in the Pauline, sacred scripture, kind of way.”
Yes Protestants have an interpretation of Paul and law contra Trent’s. I’m not bewildered by that position. This was nice, but again just assertion, as before. You’re not arguing anything, and haven’t this entire thread. It’s all just smokescreens and generalities. I’m sure there’s lots of substance and maybe you have things to offer I haven’t already seen, but maybe you don’t give a rip about offering it or don’t have time to be bothered. That’s fine as well.
“No grappling with the creaturely situation in Eden, the effects of the fall, the underlying difference on the requirements of the law or creator-creature distinctions that remain, even in glorification.”
All worthy topics I’ve discussed elsewhere. You seem to think one cannot talk about justification without bringing all the underlying principles and everything that feeds the various formulations of that doctrine to the table first to hash it out. That’s not necessarily a wrong approach (although maybe a bit prohibitive for regular blog discussions), but I wonder why you then feel free to simply give one-sentence characterizations of RC soteriology as “works righteousness/salvation” or equating cooperation with gospel-denying. If I don’t get a pass talking at high levels, and asking rather basic simple high-level questions on sanctification so you can clarify your position, I fail to see why you somehow get a pass in your characterizations of systems you reject and can just retreat to “you’re ignorant, here’s a bunch of topics we need to discuss first, etc”.
Usually blog-type discussions start at one or a few high-level points and then can spider out into various more detailed topics as the flow goes.
“No first and last adam considerations, no sole mediatorial role of Christ reconciling with veneration, adoration, supplication of the saints or Mary and of course no grappling with anathemas and Vat II ‘developments’ other than, “I’m agnostic toward Trent”. ”
You did not originally bring up Vat2 in distinction to Trent and anathemas. You shifted to that when called out on it. Vat2 did not rescind Trent’s doctrines on justification. The CCC did not rescind Trent’s statements. Pre-Vat2 theologians did not share you characterization of Tridentine soteriology either. So this remains a red herring.
“Yet, you’re still insistent that you’re gonna bring me to your bar and pepper me, and without due compensation, expect me to pedantically lay this out for you, while posturing that you’re knowledgeable on things protestant and RC. Good luck with that.”
I’m insistent that you be consistent. Either don’t offer drive-by one-sentence characterizations of RC soteriology and then demand challengers to offer a thesis before you interact, or act like Robert and other decent interlocutors in offering substantive arguments and positions rather than hand-waving.
LikeLike
So Erik, no competition then? You’d rather have Tom hang around than G the T?
I’d go for the later. Personal preferences..
LikeLike
“Vat2 did not rescind Trent’s doctrines on justification.”
Did the bishops care about Trent’s doctrines on justification? You have to care to revise.
LikeLike
Clete, nope. I’ll deal with you as I see fit and based on current and past experience. You stuck your nose into a discussion you weren’t part of, which is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t compel me to abide by your scruples much less let you set the table. I now understand you’re agnostic on Trent, it explains little and clarifies even less, particularly now that you want to trade on Vat II, and pre-Vat II, not changing anything about Trent, but you’re still agnostic about it, lots of convenience in that move. I brought it up, by the way, because it’s relevant to current RC-Prot distinctions and for no other reason.
But, I’m glad to hear you start to make distinctions on union and infusion and further on inherent righteousness and infusion-RC. I’ll continue to be consistent to what I consider relevant to the discussion at hand. I enjoy Robert and John’s contributions as well, but I still haven’t heard anything to alter my approach or my feedback.
LikeLike
Andrew – So Erik, no competition then? You’d rather have Tom hang around than G the T?
Erik – This is like asking me to choose between having stomach flu and strep throat.
LikeLike
Since I no longer debate theology what I want is a site I can learn from, have discussions with like-minded people, and have fun.
If there are well-meaning people who don’t agree with Reformed theology who want to learn more about it and have some respectful debate, they’ll find people here who will work with them.
What I don’t need are persistent trolls who make the same points about 500 times without learning anything new or helpful.
LikeLike
Stomach flu has to be the worst thing ever, Erik..
LikeLike
Just in case anyone was following this discussion, and to present it from the RC-Trad, persp., here’s the open acknowledgement of the metaphysical differences which have to be engaged from jump if these discussions are even to get off the ground and why I bring up short, Clete, and anyone else, when these categories aren’t being traded upon already, and somebody wants to redefine these as we go along. Also, it also exhibits some of the cultural tensions between Vat II and Vat I but primarily Trent as ALL cradle Vat II’s experienced it. And why being ‘agnostic’ about Trent is just an obfuscation.
LikeLike
Once you admit the people at Trent thought they were condemning actual Protestant beliefs and in so doing ended up so often condemning a caricature of Protestantism, Rome’s already shoddy case for infallibility goes out the window. There’s a reason why the Vatican doesn’t even to seem to take the claim very seriously and Benedict backtracked on papal infallibility.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Once you admit the people at Trent thought they were condemning actual Protestant beliefs and in so doing ended up so often condemning a caricature of Protestantism, Rome’s already shoddy case for infallibility goes out the window. ”
You have yet to demonstrate this. If Trent misunderstood Protestant beliefs, that has no bearing on the doctrines it actually defined. Secondly if Trent completely misunderstood Protestant beliefs, then there wouldn’t be unified common objections to elements of RC soteriology, as we obviously see after Trent and still today.
John,
“You’re giving Sean heck over calling Trent’s doctrine “works righteousness” (and, if you assume a baptized person, it does come down to your own supposedly “grace-assisted” behavior), whereas, you are giving Trent a pass for misrepresenting — getting wrong — Protestant doctrines that it anathematized.Hypocrite.”
I have no idea why this make me a hypocrite. I am not affirming Trent got things wrong, I am affirming that if it did, it’s irrelevant to the doctrines it affirmed which are still held by RCism and which is still rejected by Protestantism. And with that position, I am also saying Sean’s characterization is a misrepresentation. That’s not hypocritical.
“Trent gets a pass from you for the untold misery it caused with its actions — supposedly based on a “misunderstanding””
Yes and if Trent misunderstood things, then apparently Protestants also misunderstood Trent when they were causing misery for Catholics based on their disagreements with it.
Sean,
Wonderful. Well I see one-line caricatures are cool on your side, but a thesis is required for challengers. Makes sense. Generally people try to hold themselves to the same standards they hold others to. John mentioned something about that above.
“I now understand you’re agnostic on Trent, it explains little and clarifies even less, particularly now that you want to trade on Vat II, and pre-Vat II, not changing anything about Trent, but you’re still agnostic about it, lots of convenience in that move.”
I’m agnostic on whether Trent fully represented Protestant beliefs (the common elements amongst them at least), I am not agnostic on the doctrine it defined. The former does not impact the latter, despite the wailing here. And as I have said repeatedly, it apparently got some things right about Protestant beliefs if Protestants still disagree with it. What I’m trading on is that the soteriology defined at Trent was not rescinded pre-Vat2 nor post-Vat2 (hence you still reject RCism) and your characterization of it through your one-liners was never reflected either pre-Vat or post-Vat2. So the Vat2 red herring persists.
“here’s the open acknowledgement of the metaphysical differences which have to be engaged from jump if these discussions are even to get off the ground”
Only we don’t need to engage in these from the jump when making one-liner caricatures of RC soteriology.
LikeLike
Clete, I really don’t care if you engage with me at all. You’re the one who started with conflating union/infusion/inherent righteousness and then breaking out your agnosticism about Trent. As we’ve pushed you’ve confirmed and clarified, great. None of us, started out making these mistakes. Works-righteousness is what Rome teaches from a protestant, forensic, non-thomistic, Pauline perspective as regards justification. You call it agape, charity-infused, spirit wroughtworks, all as it relates to ongoing justification. I grasp the categories and just to show I do, and be the magnanimous and ecumenical guy that I am, I threw Fr. Barron up there to confirm. So, when I want to do something less than a treatise in a combox and trade on common parlance and historically accepted categories for conversational purposes, I do and will. That you want to do pedantic, hours and days long, extended, trodding over centuries old ground and not be sure about the historical veracity of the categories and discussion, is, like, your prerogative and problem. But, I won’t be subjecting myself to your peculiar, particular reinventions of crap I learned in CCD. Continuity not rupture, remember?
LikeLike
Cletus,
You have yet to demonstrate this. If Trent misunderstood Protestant beliefs, that has no bearing on the doctrines it actually defined. Secondly if Trent completely misunderstood Protestant beliefs, then there wouldn’t be unified common objections to elements of RC soteriology, as we obviously see after Trent and still today.
It sure does if these doctrines were defined in contradistinction to Protestantism, which was certainly the intent. To define your doctrine against someone else’s doctrine, you better know the other doctrine, otherwise you are going to err not only in what you condemn but also in what you affirm. If I’m responding to you for example, and I don’t understand your position, then when I define my position in contradiction to yours, I’m engaging in a monumental waste of time.
IOW, if Rome didn’t really understand Protestantism, how in the world can I expect it to formulate an accurate and true response to it? And if I can’t trust the response, how do I know that Rome didn’t go too far in its definition or that Rome didn’t also misunderstand its own tradition? The only way out of this is a. deny Trent’s infallibility (which in itself would not necessarily mean what it taught isn’t true, though I think it is untrue) or b. deny that Trent thought it was condemning Protestantism. I think you’re trying to have it both ways by being agnostic, and that’s because you’re a smart guy and recognize Trent’s caricatures of Protestantism but don’t want to give up on your principled reason. You can’t stay there forever.
I’m not saying that Rome completely misunderstood the Protestant position, but there are points where it is significantly off base even as it tries to present a unified sacramental front.
LikeLike
Sean,
“You’re the one who started with conflating union/infusion/inherent righteousness and then breaking out your agnosticism about Trent. As we’ve pushed you’ve confirmed and clarified, great. None of us, started out making these mistakes. ”
I’m still waiting for you to point out my mistakes. I never said that a belief in union meant you believe in inherent/infused righteousness as defined by Trent/RCism which you seem to bizarrely think I asserted. I did imply that you held to union as well as *some type* of inherent/infused righteousness, however you want to qualify that. You refuse to qualify it or offer anything which was the reason for my simple questions to tease something of substance out of you for once which is like pulling teeth. You just keep saying “you’re not distinguishing, blah blah” and then chest-thumping about all the underlying categories you assume you know and assume I have no clue on.
“I grasp the categories and just to show I do, and be the magnanimous and ecumenical guy that I am, I threw Fr. Barron up there to confirm.”
I don’t see the Barron reference. And sorry, saying RCs hold to works salvation and that cooperation is gospel-denying does not show you actually grasp categories. Someone who doesn’t actually grasp categories and underlying metaphysical differences you plead for would make the exact same type of uncareful and ignorant statements.
“when I want to do something less than a treatise in a combox and trade on common parlance and historically accepted categories for conversational purposes, I do and will.”
Oh brother – works salvation reflects common parlance and historically accepted categories? Cooperation as gospel-denying reflects common parlance and historically accepted category? I guess common and accepted amongst people who don’t care about distinctions and categories and underlying metaphysical differences. You’re trading on caricatures and generalized one-liners. That doesn’t show a grasp of categories or that you grasp any of the underlying principles. I’m sure you do, but chest-thumping is not actually evidence.
Robert,
“To define your doctrine against someone else’s doctrine, you better know the other doctrine, otherwise you are going to err not only in what you condemn but also in what you affirm.”
I affirm there are stars in the sky. My knowledge of cosmology though is faulty. Did that mean my affirmation suffers now?
I affirm I have brown hair. My friend has blonde hair. Did that mean my affirmation suffers now? Not everything Trent defined was directly driven by a Protestant counterpart opposing doctrine.
” If I’m responding to you for example, and I don’t understand your position, then when I define my position in contradiction to yours, I’m engaging in a monumental waste of time. ”
Sure – and if this actually happened, it seems like we would see a lot more agreement between Protestantism and Rome in the aftermath of Trent as well as now. But we didn’t then and don’t now. There are fundamental differences – remember Rome anathemized the gospel at Trent. So it wasn’t a waste of time apparently.
” if Rome didn’t really understand Protestantism, how in the world can I expect it to formulate an accurate and true response to it?”
If it didn’t really understand it, I do not understand why you continue to reject it. You should accept it because it didn’t reflect your views. But of course you won’t, because you recognize it did understand certain core elements of your theology that it rejected and formulated doctrine in place of.
LikeLike