I wonder if Jason and the Callers were aware of statistics like these when they aligned with a communion they thought to be the arbiter of Christian truth:
One-third of divorced and remarried Catholics who have not had their first marriage annulled receive Communion, even if they have not sought the permission of their priest.
Catholics in Britain and Ireland in such circumstances were almost twice as likely to receive Communion without having sought permission as US Catholics (29 per cent vs 17 per cent). . . .
Practising Catholics said the chief threats to marriage and family life were: artificial contraception; gay marriage and adoption; pressure caused by long working hours, money worries and unemployment; and the proliferation of pornography.
Almost three-quarters of practising Catholics welcomed the presence of lay people at the Synod, with one-quarter saying they wished more had been invited to attend and to be involved in decision-making.
Twenty per cent of Mass-going women and 15 per cent of Mass-going men said they sometimes felt the Church was too focused on the family to the point where they sometimes felt alienated.
Eighty-nine per cent of practising Catholics said a child ideally needed a mother and a father, while 11 per cent said a parent’s gender was less important than his or her commitment to the child.
About half of respondents said there was a danger the synod would be dominated by Western concerns rather than those affecting Catholics in the developing world.
Some 83 per cent of practising Catholics said they regularly pray with their children, or did when they were younger, and 78 per cent said they often talk to them about faith, or did when they were younger.
Of the clergy who took part, more than a third said the ban on artificial contraception could be ignored in good conscience and that cohabitation could be an acceptable stage en route to marriage.
To put this data which is skewed toward people who read The Tablet and use its website, consider the results of a Pew survey from last year:
How do U.S. Catholics view same-sex marriage?
As of 2012, about half of U.S. Catholics support same-sex marriage. This level of support has increased over the past decade, rising from 40% in favor in 2001.
How do U.S. Catholics view abortion?
Half of U.S. Catholics overall (51%) say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 44% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Among white Catholics, 54% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. By contrast, among Hispanic Catholics, 53% say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. In the general public, 54% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.
How do U.S. Catholics view contraception?
Just 15% of U.S. Catholics say that using contraceptives is morally wrong. Greater percentages say contraception is either morally acceptable (41%) or not a moral issue (36%). Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week are more evenly split. About three-in-ten say using contraceptives is morally wrong (27%). Similar percentages say it is morally acceptable (33%) or not a moral issue (30%).
Maybe if you are comparing yourself to the Protestant mainline, or to the Church of England, you take some encouragement from these numbers. But if you’re the Yankees or Steelers of the ecclesiastical world and rooting for a winner is what you signed up for when you crossed the Tiber, what happens when your ecclesiastical players keep coming up short in the fantasy church league?
For this reason, as much attention as people have given to the gathering of bishops in Rome over the last two weeks, not enough has been directed at how a church with so much authority, universal jurisdiction, apostolic succession, and charism — so many trophies — has been so ineffective in shepherding its flock.
I for one cannot understand how Roman Catholicism’s defenders (whether liberal or conservative) can continue to claim superiority. For instance, from the left, Michael Sean Winters consoles himself that Rome is not the Episcopal Church (which is sort of like the Phillies’ fans saying their team is not the Cubs):
A friend forwarded me a tweet from, of all people, Mia Farrow. It read: “Disappointed Catholics – imagine no Cardinals, Popes or bankers. All welcome, gay marriage, women and married priests – the Episcopal church.” Now, I do not mean to suggest that Ms. Farrow speaks for informed Episcopalianism. But, the obvious rejoinder is “No apostolic succession, no Real Presence, no ministry of unity in the Petrine office – some deal. And hurry, before they close up shop and turn off the lights.” And, the fact is that you know and I know Catholics who think as Ms. Farrow does. Their agenda has trumped everything and that is the problem. Ideology gets in the way of the unity of faith to which Pope Francis is calling us. It is this prior commitment to a desired outcome, ideologically defined, that keeps the Holy Spirit from our counsels and charity from our discussions. In short, ideology can frustrate genuine progress.
So apostolic succession is the rejoinder to those for whom it doesn’t matter (remember “pray, pay and obey”?), or even to bishops who don’t invoke their episcopal power? Again to use the Phillies’ analogy, so the Phillies were awful this year but darn, weren’t they good in 2008 — you know, once a world champion always a world champion. Tell that to the Red Sox. But if you want to keep insisting that the Phillies invented baseball, okay, but I’m not sure what kind of conversations about baseball are really possible if you’re going to take that line even though your bishops conceded fifty years ago that other teams helped contribute to baseball.
Then from the right we have the example of David Mills who compares (admirably I should say because I’d much rather interact with a conservative Roman Catholic who tells me I am wrong) Roman Catholicism to the best house in the neighborhood:
In the preface to Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis described the Church as a house with various rooms occupied by different traditions, including Catholicism. It’s not that good an image, even from his point of view, but it does give us one way of understanding our relation to our Protestant friends. Lewis would not have accepted this reimagining of his metaphor, but Catholics, who know that the Church isn’t merely one denomination among others, will know that the Catholic Church is the house, and the rooms are occupied by the various rites within the Church. To enter the house, one must be a member of the family. Friends may set up homes in the yard. They are within the pale, the relation the Church calls “real but imperfect communion.”
The Church will share as much as she can with her separated brethren. The family living in the house and the friends living in the yard may spend a lot of time together, and greatly enjoy each other’s company, but at the end of the day they each go back to their own homes. Some living in the yard resent never being let into the house, even for a family meal. It seems unkind and irrational. They’re happy to have Catholics in their homes and cannot understand why Catholics will not let them in theirs.
The homes they set up in the yard will keep them relatively warm and dry, if they build well, as some do, though not all. Life in the yard is much better than life on the street. Yet, however pleasant the families’ lives in the yard, they would be much happier and healthier and more productive if they got to live in the house itself. They are not homeless, which is a good thing, but they’re not really at home either.
. . . Outside it they do not experience the blessings only found on the inside. The positive reason is that it is a wonderful house. It is a great place to live. It is the best place to live. The kitchen is stocked with food, and the living room filled with comfortable furniture. The bathrooms have hot showers and working toilets, and the bedrooms are good. It is cool in the summer and warm in the winter. It has interesting architectural features and curious nooks and crannies. It is full of art, books, and music. It is where your family lives.
The Church is where the faith is found in its fullness, its plenitude, its abundance. I know this from my own experience of being outside the Church and then being on the inside. For over twenty years I was an Episcopalian of the sort called Anglo-Catholic, an active one who volunteered in various conservative organizations and taught at the Episcopal Church’s most conservative seminary. I lived in a rather nice house in the yard, one that from the outside looked very much like the Catholic house: much smaller, of course, but more tastefully designed and aesthetically pleasing, and sitting closer to the Catholic house than many of the others. But in the yard nevertheless, as conveyed by the joke, which even Episcopalians would make, that their religious body was “Catholic lite.”
But isn’t this house, as the recent synod and polls suggest, a little drafty, in need of a new roof, with a septic system in disrepair, and an owner who doesn’t want to do any work on repairing the house because he think he owns the whole neighborhood (maybe like the one the Addams Family occupied)? When will this beautiful house get the maintenance it needs? Or when will the residents of the house actually listen to what the real estate agents are saying (some of whom teach classes in the house’s universities) that the house no longer matters since it’s more fun to hang out with the homeless?
And then comes the offhand comment about the synod that you just can’t believe someone said, in this case another fellow whom I admire, Peter Lawler:
Someone was wondering whether it was my “Pope Francis” moment in which I was subtly repudiating Catholic teaching on the purposes of sex and marriage. Well, I don’t think our pope is actually doing that, although I will say he’s filled the air with mixed messages. But maybe he’s right in some way such that, although the truth doesn’t change, recent developments might suggest that the gift of talking about it lovingly and effectively is in short supply. I certainly don’t claim to have that gift.
I don’t like to have to make this connection, but Roman Catholic marriage practices that led the bishops to Rome to think about what to do occurred on the watch of one of the church’s most beloved popes, John Paul II. Not only was he revered by many (maybe not the progressives), but he also offered one of the most philosophically rich accounts of sex, the body, and marriage that Roman Catholics have ever seen. And for all this you get a group of followers who are indistinguishable from the rest of their American mainline Protestant neighbors on gay marriage?
I know that since all priests still have to take the anti-modernist oath, lots of Roman Catholics think that modernism can’t happen there. But here they need to remember that Protestant modernism arose among Presbyterians at the same time that ministers subscribed the Westminster Standards.
I get it. Roman Catholic modernism doesn’t smell (and we haven’t even begun to talk about Richard McBrien).
Old Life 
Darryl,
Just keep repeating: “But they have the principled means, but they have the principled means…”
I’m still waiting for these guys to deal honestly with the question as to how you can rely so much on Aposotlic succession when Apostolic succession guarantees nothing. Even Rome has some kind of provision for a large number of bishops—including the pope—to go apostate. But how are we supposed to know when this happens when the same bishops are telling us they are infallible?
When your interpretation of Scripture and the Magisterium disagrees with the Magisterium’s own interpretation and application of itself, why spend so much time trying to justify how you fit with them. Won’t a good RC of the CTC mold just submit? It makes no sense.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Your fantasy football analogy doesn’t quite work for CTCers. A more apt fantasy sports analogy is that they think they have Kim Jong Il in a North Korean fantasy golf league. The score is whatever the Magisterium says it is.
Of course, Bryan’s predictable response to your post would be that the authority of the Magisterium does not depend on lay or clerical obedience/agreement in any way. It’s convenient to deal yourself a trump card in every hand.
LikeLike
“But if you’re the Yankees or Steelers of the ecclesiastical world and rooting for a winner is what you signed up for when you crossed the Tiber, what happens when your ecclesiastical players keep coming up short in the fantasy church league?”
That line alone is pure gold.
LikeLike
bv, so infallibility exists even the church errs. Perfect.
LikeLike
Darryl,
That’s because, apparently, your only or primary measure of “superiority” is the percentage of members of an institution who conform fully to an institution’s formal teaching. Who that institution was founded by, or whether that institution is in schism from the institution founded by Christ, are not even on your conceptual radar as measurements of its “superiority.” Throughout Church history, rigorists (e.g. Tertullian-as-Montanist, Donatists, etc.) have measured the Church as you do. If you want at least to *understand* (which you say you presently cannot do) the Catholic position, even while disagreeing with it, you first have to learn how Catholics understand the marks of the Church, which is very different from the way Protestants such as yourself conceive of the marks of the Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
“Don’t stop believing” is the blog of an Arminian trained at Calvin College to have a Reformed w-view. His name is Mike Wittmer.
“If there is a new Jerusalem, why not a new Los Angeles? Why not a new Chicago, a new Paris a new London?
https://mikewittmer.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/coming-home/
LikeLike
BV,
You should have seen The Dear Leader bowl.
LikeLike
Bryan – That’s because, apparently, your only or primary measure of “superiority” is the percentage of members of an institution who conform fully to an institution’s formal teaching.
Jesus –
A Tree and Its Fruit
Matthew 7
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.”
LikeLike
Bryan, you’re not doing well with coming along side us non-RC’s in the style that a majority of the bishops favor. Where’s the mercy? Why are you so much a rigorist when it comes to the stuff that you emphasize (even though your bishops do not)?
I have appealed to your imagination before and been deeply disappointed. But I’ll try again. Here you have a beloved Roman bishop who goes to herculean efforts to explain the nature of sex and the body and meanwhile the bulk of the U.S. church is not even paying attention. If you don’t consider that a fly in the ointment of your call — and let’s be clear, this is CTC’s call not the pope’s — then you are in serious denial. (But at least you found work unlike Jason.)
LikeLike
There’s a bit of irony in Bryan & The Callers mission. They obviously recruit Presbyterian & Reformed people because:
(A) P&R people are solid Christians and, upon conversion, make solid Catholics.
(B) Many cradle Catholics, as these surveys show, make rather lousy Christians.
(C) Cradle Catholics don’t really care about Bryan & The Callers ministry and won’t listen to them (because they’re newbies) so if Bryan & The Callers want to have a ministry, evangelizing P&R people is about all that is open to them.
So if P&R people are solid Christians, why would they be attracted to a church full so many lousy Christians?
I know, all eyes are supposed to be on the Pope, but most P&R people just aren’t buying. Only a very small number of eggheads.
LikeLike
Erik, that’s only the Bible. It’s not Denzinger.
Biblicist!
LikeLike
I believe I win the door prize for accurately predicting Bryan’s response. Looking forward to my authentic, Deeg-used cigar butt.
LikeLike
Lest you doubt me, where’s the call to Pentecostals, foot washing Baptists, Unitarians, Episcopalians, the PCUSA, Methodists, and Tom Van Dyke?
LikeLike
Yeah, Darryl, your conceptual radar sucks.
LikeLike
Your crappy conceptual radar was cobbled up in Switzerland and Scotland. Errbody knows the Italian make the best electronics and weapon systems.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Anyone can pound the table. Constructing an argument, on the other hand, is altogether another thing.
But maybe the notion that those (i.e. in this case Catholics) with whom you disagree must be in serious denial is part of the reason why by your own admission you can’t understand them. There’s no reason to bother even trying to understand persons who by stipulated definition are “in serious denial.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan – There’s no reason to bother even trying to understand persons who by stipulated definition are “in serious denial.”
Erik – For perhaps the first time Bryan has said something I can agree with.
LikeLike
What if P&R people issued a call to communion to say, Methodists. After laying out our theological arguments for the superiority of our “paradigm” the Methodists respond with some inconvenient observations such as, “Hey, we noticed that half the people who were baptized in a Reformed church don’t attend worship”, or “Hey, we noticed that 25% of the people who are in your church are living together without being married.” or “Hey, I was talking to a bunch of folks at your church and 50% of them appear to be pro-choice.”
Would we just repeat the theological arguments and ignore their comments?
LikeLike
The sheep don’t always listen and the shepherds don’t always do a bang up job. The philosophical apologetic does sound a little cheap in times of crises…. nevertheless, Catholicism is more biblical, historical, and credible than reformed churches. Thats a pretty big advantage.
LikeLike
If a theological system has not made a profound, visible difference in the lives of the majority of those who have been involved in it since birth, why would I ever buy into that system on the basis of obscure philosophical and historical arguments? It’s a ludicrous proposition.
Mormonism is actually a step ahead of Catholicism on the basis of the lifestyle and behavior of the average Mormon.
LikeLike
Bryan,
You can attack me ad hominem and all, but when I see at CTC anything like the kind of discussions that I find at Unam Sanctam or when I see in you critical awareness of developments in Roman Catholicism like Cardinal Burke’s, then I will continue to think of you like a used-car salesman.
Heck, it’s not like you need to look very far to see that your people are worried about where the church is heading. Just read Ross Douthat. But you seem to think that we need to be in denial — that we only need to read your call and ignore all the other stuff (and there are so many more outlets than CTC). You’re not in the PCA anymore, Toto.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Or Catholicism was grandfathered in for centuries because of politics, then once politics was no longer a factor, Catholicism was exposed.
LikeLike
This just in from Ken, get out the marble block and chisel: “The sheep don’t always listen and the shepherds don’t always do a bang up job.” I’m attracted to paradigm that produces such profundity.
LikeLike
Erik,
I am not able to predict reliably what you would do in such a case. But I can say this: if the rigorist position (i.e. later Tertullian, Novatians, Donatists, Cathars) looks right to you, then you haven’t yet grasped the Catholic paradigm. So by continuing to raise criticisms that build on rigorist presuppositions, you show that you don’t get the other paradigm, and don’t even get that it is a paradigm difference that is not based on a quantitative difference in the proportion of member-compliance.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
loser ken, biblical? are you kidding?
credible? what do you say about bishops who cover up scandals in the church? Does that build confidence.
I’ll give you historical. And yes, the Yankees have won more championships. But you’re in the land of people who root for underdogs. funny how much Christ’s own teaching about the last shall be first goes with liking the little guy instead of obeying an ecclesiastical monarch who now has his own cookbook.
LikeLike
Kenneth, ding! Now that’s a defense we can live with–more biblical, historical, and credible. But I know the infallibility thing is coming. Gong.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Anyone can pound the table. Constructing an argument, on the other hand, is altogether another thing.
Simply stating that Catholicism is more biblical, historical, and credible than Reformed churches does not make it true. I think you need to go back to your Bryan Cross Logic Catechism.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yep, ad hominem. It leaves untouched the truth of everything I said above.
I’m not unaware of the worriers. Their existence does not falsify anything I said above.
Nope, I never condone denial of the truth.
That’s a strawman. I’ve never claimed that, nor do I believe that.
If you want to have a real conversation, I’m willing. But it isn’t possible so long as you resort to barbs and strawmen and misrepresentations.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Like acting as if Catholic leaders aren’t divided over important issues in doctrine and practice? Or did you have another kind of misrepresentation in mind?
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Why are you so much a rigorist when it comes to the stuff that you emphasize (even though your bishops do not)?”
Which bishops are you referring to? Is this another instance of American and Western Europe-tinted glasses that ignore African and Asian bishops (maybe you can have drinks with Kasper).
“Here you have a beloved Roman bishop who goes to herculean efforts to explain the nature of sex and the body and meanwhile the bulk of the U.S. church is not even paying attention.”
US church – yep, once again Catholicism is reduced to just American Catholicism in your thorough analysis.
And in your view, you have Scripture that goes to great effort to explain monergism and Calvinist doctrine and meanwhile the bulk of Protestantism is not even paying attention. But that just speaks more to the ones who reject it rather than Scripture right?
“bv, so infallibility exists even the church errs. Perfect.”
Atheist: So infallibility/inerrancy exists even when Scripture errs. Perfect.
Darryl: You are not understanding infallibility/inerrancy properly.
Atheist: Sophist in denial!
LikeLike
I am commenting due to the stifling arrogance from the commentators here at this site. I am a former Reformed Christian who attended a “Reformed” seminary. One of several reasons leaving is the stench of arrogance that emanated from the “Reformed” camp. Everybody was just so darn smart and “theologically correct” that they couldn’t smell the skunk. I used to think that the arrogance came from the “health and wealth” televangelists. Theirs was material and profiteering; I now see this is just as uncharitable and heartless. D.G. I am now sorry that I used to think highly of your work in Modern Reformation magazine. I’m now embarrassed that I ever carried the label “Reformed.”
LikeLike
CVD, glopping onto Bryan doesn’t add any credibility to you on OL.
It’s kind of funny you only grew some hair on your chest because Bryan did his tired act again
LikeLike
Not me CVD, I consider the syncretistic, ignorant, blatantly idolatrous brand of Papistry/Mariolatry practiced in Central and South America, and the creepy mystical variety from Spain to be the typical, real RCism. So there.
LikeLike
Bryan, real conversation is likely impossible since it involves on your end regular instruction about logic and perspective.
Here’s the thing and we’ve discussed this before. Your call is a partial view of Roman Catholicism. You have a paradigm and you look at everything through it. So you find the bits that are true and you leave out the bits that compromise that truth. Sorry for the ad hominem, but that’s dishonest. It’s like me only using the Westminster Standards and the Constitution of the OPC to talk about Presbyterianism.
But if that gets you a job, good for you.
LikeLike
That’s because, apparently, your only or primary measure of “superiority” is the percentage of members of an institution who conform fully to an institution’s formal teaching [of implicit faith, for those who are ignorant of the more arcane features of the popish paradigmology]. Who that institution was[assumed to be] founded by [cannot ever be on the table], or whether that institution is in schism from the institution founded by Christ [which again any true romanists knows cannot be Rome, ], are not even on your conceptual radar as measurements of its [faithfulness to]
“superiority.”[your paradigm of Scripture alone. Because as we all know Scripture cannot be read unparadigmatically, while any apology for Rome, such as this one, can].Throughout Church history, rigorists (e.g. Tertullian-as-Montanist, Donatists, etc.) have measured the Church as you do [thus the “get behind me Satan ” remark to His First Holiness in Matt. 16:23. But] (I)f you want at least to *understand* (which you say you presently cannot do) the Catholic position [because it appears to be incoherent to the naked eye], even while disagreeing with it, you first have to learn how Catholics understand the marks of the Church, which is very different from the way Protestants such as yourself conceive of the marks of the Church. [The emphasis – when it’s not on a “one excuse fits all” ignorant faith – is on the external such as the apostolic bones, which if you haven’t seen, you will just have to believe exist if you don’t follow the pope on Twitter.
Except when the emphasis is not on the external and visible, such as the lost infallible authoritative apostolic oral traditions and the table of contents in the front of the
comicbook.]LikeLike
foxy lady, oh you mean Pope Francis is one of those non-U.S. Roman Catholics. Or you mean that Rome is really somewhere in Asia.
Lame.
Look, if the OPC claimed universal jurisdiction you’d have a point. But why don’t you worry about the church that has universal jurisdiction and isn’t quite so impressive with how it works.
Pride is still a sin for Roman Catholics, right?
LikeLike
MV, you should come around more often.
LikeLike
I for one cannot understand how any apologist for any denomination or branch of Christianity can claim superiority over the others having read Romans 3:9
LikeLike
Darryl,
And there’s where you commit the fallacy of begging the question, by referring to the existence of things that with mere hand-waving you presume, without any provided argument, “compromise that truth.” To avoid that fallacy, you need to make those “bits” explicit, and then show how they falsify or refute something we’ve said. So far (i.e. since July of 2012) you have not done that, even though since then you’ve tried to do so hundreds of times.
I wouldn’t have to engage in “regular instruction about logic” when replying to you if you didn’t regularly commit logical fallacies.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Darryl,
Since I was unaware of the sins, struggles with sin, personal opinions, and voting choices of Catholics and of my Protestant friends, all these things were not factors to help me figure out where orthodoxy exists in full. No Protestant ecclesial body said that contraception was a grave sin, and this is where there is a big difference. I could have gone along in my life not knowing I was committing grave sin, if the Catholic Church wasn’t so adamant that it is a sin and not a matter of personal opinion. I didn’t decide first of all that it was wrong and then find a community that agreed with me. I had friends that had a lot of children and I just thought they were trying to one-up everyone else,gaining notches in their belts because by disagreeing with my choice to decide how many kids I wanted they were acting as if their opinions were holier than mine. They used the biblical idea of a full-quiver to support their personal choice, but authoritatively speaking they had no power to bind my conscience even if the husband/ father had been my pastor. If no one speaks infallibly all we have is a host of opinions.
“The Christian world, so called, what is it practically, but a witness for Satan rather than a witness for Christ? Rightly understood, doubtless the very disobedience of Christians witnesses for Him who will overcome whenever He is judged. But is there any antecedent prejudice against religion so great as that which is occasioned by the lives of its professors? Let us ever remember, that all who follow God with but a half heart, strengthen the hands of His enemies, give cause of exultation to wicked men, perplex inquirers after truth, and bring reproach upon their Saviour’s name. It is a known fact, that unbelievers triumphantly maintain that the greater part of the English people is on their side; that the disobedience of professing Christians is a proof, that (whatever they say) yet in their hearts they are unbelievers too. This we ourselves perhaps have heard said; and said, not in the heat of argument, or as a satire, but in sober earnestness, from real and full persuasion that it is true; that is, the men who have cast off their Saviour, console themselves with the idea, that their neighbours, though too timid or too indolent openly to do so, yet in secret, or at least in their real character, do the same. And witnessing this general inconsistency, they despise them {137} as unmanly, cowardly, and slavish, and hate religion as the origin of this debasement of mind. “The people who in this country call themselves Christians (says one of these men), with few exceptions, are not believers; and every man of sense, whose bigotry has not blinded him, must see that persons who are evidently devoted to worldly gain, or worldly vanities, or luxurious enjoyments, though still preserving a little decency, while they pretend to believe the infinitely momentous doctrines of Christianity, are performers in a miserable farce, which is beneath contempt.” Such are the words of an open enemy of Christ; as though he felt he dared confess his unbelief, and despised the mean hypocrisy of those around him. His argument, indeed, will not endure the trial of God’s judgment at the last day, for no one is an unbeliever but by his own fault. But though no excuse for him, it is their condemnation. What, indeed, will they plead before the Throne of God, when, on the revelation of all hidden deeds, this reviler of religion attributes his unbelief in a measure to the sight of their inconsistent conduct? When he mentions this action or that conversation, this violent or worldly conduct, that covetous or unjust transaction, or that self-indulgent life, as partly the occasion of his falling away? “Woe unto the world (it is written), because of scandals; for it must needs be that scandals come, but woe to the man by whom the scandal cometh!” [Matt. xviii. 7.] Woe unto the deceiver and self-deceived! “His hope shall perish; his hope shall be cut off, and his trust shall {138} be a spider’s web: he shall lean upon his house, but it shall not stand; he shall hold it fast, but it shall not endure.” [Job viii. 13-15.] God give us grace to flee from this woe while we have time! Let us examine ourselves, to see if there be any wicked way in us; let us aim at obtaining some comfortable assurance that we are in the narrow way that leads to life. And let us pray God to enlighten us, and to guide us, and to give us the will to please Him, and the power.” JHN’s Profession without Practice
LikeLike
MV,
Which camp is claiming that their church leader has never erred in his teachings? Doesn’t sound exceedingly humble to me (it sounds more like Juniper Creek). But that doesn’t fit your emotional narrative, now does it?
LikeLike
Commie Curt, you raving idiot. Why weren’t you in Nicaragua in 1982 fighting with the Sandinistas? I can’t figure why you AREN’T a liberation theology-loving Papist. Get thee to a socialist monkery.
LikeLike
Curt, it’s not the claim of superiority that troubles but the claim of super-superiority, as in infallibility. There is a difference between claiming to be correct (Reformed) and claiming unable to be wrong (Roman).
LikeLike
Bryan,
This isn’t science lab. Everyone knows, plenty of Roman Catholics do, that what you present as the truth is partial. What do you imagine Richard McBrien would say about your call to communion, for instance? And do you think you can simply sneer at a reference to a theologian who has been the president of the Catholic Theological Society, has taught theology at one of your church’s Cadillacs of universities, and has been recommended reading for numerous college, high school, and parish theology classes?
Unless you acknowledge that people with a very different understanding of the faith than you have a whole lot more clout than you in your infallible church, there’s no reason why I or anyone else should pay attention to you. Somehow we’re only supposed to notice CTC and EWTN?
McBrien on John Paul II (for instance):
LikeLike
Susan, some Reformed pews are made up of entire single families, and here I thought modesty was a Reformed virtue. But what do you mean “if nobody speaks infallibly”? The Bible does.
LikeLike
Susan, “Since I was unaware . . . all these things were not factors to help me figure out where orthodoxy exists in full.”
Way to do your homework.
I know that sounds a bit cold. But you’re not really helping your case. Maybe you want to run these comments by your bishop before posting?
LikeLike
Darryl,
That’s the ad populum fallacy.
A question is compatible with any truth. So those two questions are fully compatible with everything we’ve said.
Even if it were true that there is no reason why you should pay attention to me, that would not refute anything we’ve said. In other words, every single thing we have said could still be true, even if there was no reason to pay attention to us.
That too does not refute anything we’ve said.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, but everything I said confirms what I said. You’re truth is partial.
Worse, your truth is not what the hierarchy is presenting.
Unam Sanctam has much more going for it than you. Boniface believes the truths you present and he is honest enough to admit what is going on in the church.
Face it Bryan — prepare for the logical fallacy — Richard McBrien and Boniface are much more representative than you.
LikeLike
ZRIM,
All you have to do is go through the list where Protestants disagree among themselves, besides disagreeing with Catholicism, to see that the inerrant scriptures can’t fix the division.
LikeLike
Darryl,
All this is fully compatible with everything we’ve said being true. As I’ve explained to you many times before, we’ve never claimed to be an exhaustive source of information about things Catholic; nor do we try to be that. We’ve only claimed that what we are saying is true. And nothing you have thrown out here, over the course of twenty-seven months of constant criticism, has falsified even one of things we’ve claimed. So again, when you claim that we “leave out the bits that compromise that truth” you never provide the argument showing that something we have not said “compromise” or falsifies any claim we’ve stated, or falsifies any argument we’ve made. Instead, you just hand-wave. And that’s easy, but worthless.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Darryl,
Was I supposed to read an opinion poll to find out where the one church is located? Can opinion polls really help me do my homework. I don’t need to find out what everyone else agrees with;I won’t be judged for their refusal to obey Christ.
LikeLike
BV,
“Which camp is claiming that their church leader has never erred in his teachings? Doesn’t sound exceedingly humble to me (it sounds more like Juniper Creek).”
So…does your statement err? And how should I know? If Scripture doesn’t err…then are the author’s who penned them not humble as well? May I ask, who is your infallible teacher?
“(it sounds more like Juniper Creek).
…ahh… what’s that I smell? I’ll assume you meant that in the best Christian way possible.
LikeLike
Susan, get this. Those people answering the polls are the ones your infallible bishops have identified as Roman Catholic. You know, those sacraments always work.
LikeLike
Matt, you’re not this perky in teacher/staff meetings are you?
LikeLike
Darryl.
“Susan, get this. Those people answering the polls are the ones your infallible bishops have identified as Roman Catholic.”
But surely you understand that the Church isn’t asking the question to see if the Church should make her views reflect opinion, right? The rules haven’t change nor will they, but if the Church bishops want to find a way to be more loving to families who have loved ones who are struggling with sin or feel alienated from Godand the Christian Church then this is a very pastoral move. The Church is always calling peole to communion with Christ.
“You know, those sacraments always work.”
“Sacrament means: I give what I myself cannot give; I do something that is not my work; I am on a mission and have become a bearer of that which another has committed to my charge.” ~ Pope Benedict XVI
LikeLike
Susan,
But surely you understand that the Church isn’t asking the question to see if the Church should make her views reflect opinion, right? The rules haven’t change nor will they, but if the Church bishops want to find a way to be more loving to families who have loved ones who are struggling with sin or feel alienated from Godand the Christian Church then this is a very pastoral move. The Church is always calling peole to communion with Christ.
Except that you have European cardinals saying that they are ignoring the conservative bishops and you have lots of trial balloons about valuing homosexual orientation. What we’re seeing is a slow motion repeat of what happened to the PCUSA. It’s moving so slow that by the time it does happened, you guys will believe that the church has always endorsed homosexuality.
LikeLike
Zrim,
But we aren’t that far behind with the emphasis we put on the Westminster Standards. That means though we aren’t making parallel claims, we are on the same continuum.
LikeLike
So CW, you think that I should have fought against the terrorist tactics practiced by the US backed contras? BTW, to be technically precise, I am more in line with libertarian socialism and prefer the Russell-EInstein manifesto’s opposition to war.
LikeLike
DG,
“Matt, you’re not this perky in teacher/staff meetings are you?”
Yep. Sure am. If interested, maybe we should hang out sometime.
LikeLike
Well the argumentalso applies internationally. Roman Catholicism does not seem to bear good fruit anywhere.
LikeLike
Bryan’s apparently come up with a new catch phrase to throw at those who point out how the bishops are divided on important moral issues — “rigorist”.
He’s also added “bang the table”.
“Strawman” and “Paradigm” haven’t gone anywhere, though. They’re still prominent in the tool kit.
Glad to have him back.
LikeLike
That is more or less the exact opposite of what Jesus says.
LikeLike
Every since Vatican II every confab seems to be about lowering standards, not raising standards. That’s how liberalism works.
We come out of the PCUSA & the CRC so we know.
LikeLike
All you have to do is go through the list where Protestants disagree among themselves, besides disagreeing with Catholicism, to see that the inerrant scriptures can’t fix the division.
But, Susan, all you have to do is survey worldwide Catholicism to see that the (allegedly infallible) magisterium doesn’t fix divisions either. Have you read the post proper? Yours is a house as divided as ours. Not to sound superior, but the difference is that we take Paul’s outlook that there must be divisions among us to show who has God’s approval. You act not only as if division doesn’t exist over there but that it’s inherently a bad thing.
LikeLike
Curt, Curt, Curt, you’re confusing a high view of the confessions with an infallible view. Your eeeevangelical slip is showing again.
LikeLike
MV,
Thanks for doing us a big favor and dropping out.
LikeLike
Man these guys (and Susan) are really feeling their oats after the bishops refrained from flushing centuries of Catholic moral teaching down the tubes this week.
They need to check back in a year after Francis shares his views.
LikeLike
Reading Bryan is a good reminder of why philosophers usually drive 20 year old Volvos, wear jackets with patches on the elbows, rarely trim their ear hair, and live in houses with the gutters hanging down, all the while thinking they’ve got the world by the tail.
LikeLike
Susan, if only you’d been that
gulliblepatient with the URC.LikeLike
Susan – All you have to do is go through the list where Protestants disagree among themselves, besides disagreeing with Catholicism, to see that the inerrant scriptures can’t fix the division.
Erik – It’s only a problem if that bothers you. It bothered you.
LikeLike
MV, the nerve. Why would I (superior) want to hang out with you (inferior)?
LikeLike
Bryan – We’ve only claimed that what we are saying is true. And nothing you have thrown out here, over the course of twenty-seven months of constant criticism, has falsified even one of things we’ve claimed.
Erik – That may be a better track record than the Pope.
Since most of what you say is opinion and is not verifiable how would you suggest we falsify it?
Contrary to your fondest wishes, this stuff is religion, not math.
LikeLike
Curt,
Why?
LikeLike
Factual and logical accuracy is not sufficient to be true. “I heard Darryl is a child molester.” Every thing I just typed is true even if the meaning being communicated is false. By leaving out important information (I heard it by mumbling the phrase as I typed here), I am misleading the people who read the post. This is a game politicians, advertisers, and hucksters play.
Given your interest in the use of paradigms to describe your religion, you might be interested in Richard Feynman’s famous speech on “Cargo Cult Science”. The key bit is:
If you aren’t willing to reveal the warts of your faith, you aren’t being honest even if everything you say is technically true. Further, paradigms, by their nature, are not falsifiable. You can always “save appearances”. But eventually the apparatus used to buttress the paradigm gets too clunky (requires too much Jesuitical arguments?) even if everything it claims is “true”. Then a more elegant (useful) paradigm comes along and displaces it.
The biggest problem you have is that your infallible magisterium only exists in theory. Who do I go to interpret it for me? The Cardinals are lying liars who celebrate their fellow cardinals who rape little boys. As Dreher has demonstrated, this is intrinsic to RC ecclesiology. So who can I trust to guide me through the magisterium? Do I turn to Fr. McBrien? You? Who? I guess I’m left with my private judgment. But if that is the case how am I better off epistemologically as an RC than as a prot? The ecclesiastical justification rests on a tradition that has been largely discredited by scholars within your own communion.
So the call is to a bunch of new rules, a lack of assurance, and the knowledge the bishop may deny my access to the table if I bring charges against a molesting priest. When you catalog the warts (i.e. you are utterly honest), it doesn’t sound like much of a call. I’ll stick with a small insignificant church that preaches the Gospel and properly administers the sacraments. We may not have very nice looking buildings, great art, or a rolodex filled with famous scholars, but I can live with that.
LikeLike
Zrim,
No I am not. I am saying that the two are along the same continuum, but just in different places. And what moves the two together is how we treat that high view of confession.
LikeLike
Erik,
Why what?
LikeLike
Susan – All you have to do is go through the list where Protestants disagree among themselves, besides disagreeing with Catholicism, to see that the inerrant scriptures can’t fix the division.
Either can the magisterium. The Bishops voted on the final Synod report 104/74. If this is infallible doctrine that can’t be changed, why don’t these princes of the church agree? Which camp should I listen to?
LikeLike
Can we get back to the picture of Journey please?
I see them saying in both song and look-
Do stop believing
Give up on that feeling
Catholics, truth, oy oy oy oy…take it away Steve Perry
LikeLike
Curt,
Exactly.
LikeLike
Erik,
Can’t answer your question unless you answer mine
LikeLike
Erik,
“Man these guys (and Susan) are really feeling their oats after the bishops refrained from flushing centuries of Catholic moral teaching down the tubes this week.”
Yes, well after the earlier threads here leading up to and during the synod where everyone was clucking over Rome is so about to overturn its teachings on homosexuality and/or marriage (it’s PCUSA all over again!), then the revised final report comes out and now we get “They need to check back in a year after Francis shares his views.” I know, I know, it’s gonna happen – it just has to. Next year for sure (except if it doesn’t, well then uh, McBrien!)
Darryl,
“Lame”
What’s lame is so-called analysis of Catholicism that never takes into account Asia or Africa (and it’s not on just this topic). I wonder why they (along with western conservative bishops/cardinals) were invited to the synod? Just for appearances I guess.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
“But, Susan, all you have to do is survey worldwide Catholicism to see that the (allegedly infallible) magisterium doesn’t fix divisions either.”
Steve, yes it does. Do you know that Catholicism has official teaching even though there are some or many who ignore it? What was that % again who want things to go their way( against a real concrete, metaphysic of right and wrong), compared to the number of Catholics in the world? is is large or small considering? My friend( and I’m not being sarcastic; you know this and that I think you and your family are lovely), can’t you see that there is an official, on the books, teaching, that is authoratitive because it is in accordance with reality? You haven’tgiven up that there is objective teaching, that can issue anthemas and have the authority behind them have you/
LikeLike
Cletus,
I’d be concerned that the bishops are even entertaining the thought of finding a way to “value homosexual orientation.” The fact that they backpedaled might soothe you, but why don’t you go ask the conservative Episcopalians how great a position they’re in after decades of the E. Church “listening pastorally” to the views of its people.
LikeLike
Susan,
Do you know that Catholicism has official teaching even though there are some or many who ignore it?
But if groups that disagree on the meaning and application of “official teaching” are welcomed with open arms to the Eucharist, how do you know which group is ignoring it?
LikeLike
“Susan, if only you’d been that gullible patient with the URC.” ( for some reason the strike through didn’t copy)
Anyways, I didn’t hate the URC( or any member personally, they are in fact wonderful people that I love very much), it’s the doctrine that bothered me. Do you mean by patient to infer that as a denomination they were going to stop their protest? The Swiss Reformation wasn’t a good thing after all. History says that Calvin was run out of France and took to the French speaking Switzerland and had even fellow Protestants run out of Geneva. He essentially established a theocracy in Geneva and then proceeded to fing a way to harmonize Lutheran theology with Zwinglianism.( subordinationism was hard to rectify) He did well, as his Institutes attest, but that still begs the question about who it is that “knows” rightly.
LikeLike
Robert,
“But if groups that disagree on the meaning and application of “official teaching” are welcomed with open arms to the Eucharist, how do you know which group is ignoring it?”
I think that you have good questions. First of all, I don’t necessarily agree that there is a group confusion. There may be some who are confused, and I’m just speculating, but at the end of the day when everything finishes up there will be coherency;all we have to do is wait for it. So even if someone or a few are confused there is a way to straighten out the confusion sooner or later, just as there was regarding other doctrines from the past. Also, anyone going up to receive our Lord is going to be doing so with a heart of sincere repentance and devotion. God knows when a person wants to submit fully to Him, so if there is a right intention, that is what is our Lord will see and care about.
LikeLike
All this is fully compatible with everything we’ve said being true [implicit claim]. As I’ve explained to you many times before, we’ve never ****** to be an exhaustive source of information about things Catholic; nor do we try to be that [two implicit, one explicit claim]. We’ve only ****** that what we are saying is true. And nothing you have thrown out here [a claim], over the course of twenty-seven months of constant criticism, has falsified even one of things we’ve ******. So again, when you ****** that we “leave out the bits that compromise that truth” you never provide the argument showing that something we have not said “compromise” or falsifies any ****** we’ve stated, or falsifies any argument we’ve made. Instead, you just hand-wave [another implicit claim]. And that’s easy, but worthless [ditto].
We gets it, we gets it. How many times must Bryan [explicitly for now] claim something for it to be a true claim?
The answer my friend, if not blowing in the wind, is writ large above. Four times to the prot one. And because his four claims are all in good faith and honesty, therefore he doesn’t need to prove his
claimsassertions or provide an argument, he just has to claim that he does. Four times. (Easy peasy pumkin pie, pal. This common core philosophy stuff is a cinch.)Why one might even say that he widens the church’s explicit claim for implicit faith to include his four claims, which is of course exactly what I take them to be, four
emptyexplicit claims. And since Bryan’s hand waving and table pounding four claims are always truly and performatively hand waving and table pounding claims that cannot be falsified, because he has claimed four times that his four claims are unfalsifiable, therefore ergo pergo fergo his four claims are unfalsifiable.Which is to border on sainthood at least one time.
Just remember where you heard this claim first, boys and girls.
That’s right, it wasn’t CalledTo******union
LikeLike
foxy lady, it’s called R-O-M-A-N Catholicism. If you’re going to go all in on infallibility and magisterium, I’m now supposed to look to Asia or Africa? What Basilicas do they have? What secret archives? What relics? But when things don’t go well, switch to another part of the world.
That’s exactly what Luther and Henry VIII did. Think German princes and English monarchs. Forget Rome.
Double lame.
LikeLike
Susan, do you know that the URC has official teaching even though the rest of the world doesn’t believe it?
Oh, wait. Rome has better buildings, fancier garb, and a bank.
Do you know what “front runner” means?
LikeLike
Susan, you do realize that until 1870 the pope was a temporal prince who had real armies and ruled the political sphere of the Papal States. He was also responsible for the Roman Inquisition which restricted Jews to ghettos.
Are you really going to justify your conversion by going theocratic Geneva on us?
Again, run your remarks past your bishop. You’re only making Roman Catholicism look bad.
LikeLike
Susan, here’s a blogger for you:
LikeLike
DG,
“MV, the nerve. Why would I (superior) want to hang out with you (inferior)?”
Easy…Because you have all the answers. I will take copious notes. I shall sit at your feet and you in the chair.
LikeLike
Susan,
I think that you have good questions. First of all, I don’t necessarily agree that there is a group confusion. There may be some who are confused, and I’m just speculating, but at the end of the day when everything finishes up there will be coherency;all we have to do is wait for it.
But as a Protestant I can say the exact same thing, which is why pointing to Protestant division as evidence that sola Scriptura doesn’t work is counterproductive and flat out wrong unless you are willing to note that division in Rome disproves the claims it makes. If you’re just waiting for things to someday all work out, that’s not substantially different than Protestantism.
So even if someone or a few are confused there is a way to straighten out the confusion sooner or later, just as there was regarding other doctrines from the past.
But what is unclear is why this necessitates that the church is infallible whenever the church says it is.
Also, anyone going up to receive our Lord is going to be doing so with a heart of sincere repentance and devotion. God knows when a person wants to submit fully to Him, so if there is a right intention, that is what is our Lord will see and care about.
I think you mean that this is what SHOULD be the case because it is self-evident that more than half of American RCs go up with the intent to receive the Lord even though they are practicing or approving of what you and other conservative RCs call mortal sin. I’m sympathetic to the most conservative reading of the Magisterium, but all that ends up being is what confessional Protestants do with their own documents. If we can’t have confidence that we are reading them correctly because we don’t claim infallibility for the church, I have no idea why you can have confidence that your reading of the infallible church is correct, particularly when you yourself do not have the gift of infallibility and the Magisterium is not acting in any tangible way to confirm that your reading is correct.
LikeLike
…can’t you see that there is an official, on the books, teaching, that is authoratitive because it is in accordance with reality? You haven’tgiven up that there is objective teaching, that can issue anthemas and have the authority behind them have you…I didn’t hate the URC…it’s the doctrine that bothered me.
Susan, now you’re asking me to employ private judgment to sort out what accords with reality. Isn’t that what leads to self-popery? Or is that only when the sorting out concludes Protestant? The self-serving dilemma has been pointed out repeatedly, but the point never seems to land with anybody over there. Here it is again (because my forehead isn’t quite flat enough to rest my beer on confidently): When you use private judgment to conclude Catholic, it’s kosher. When we use it to conclude Protestant, it’s schismatic.
I am reminded of a human communications professor who once brilliantly summed up female-to-male communications with one hand gesturing “come hither” and the other “go away.” You CtCers are the females of Catholic-to-Protestant communications.
LikeLike
I think I still prefer RC to broader evangelicalism. The problem is that isn’t saying much. Though it makes perfect sense of the prot-fundies turned trad-RC. It tracks similar to moving from PCA to FV(CREC). It’s interesting the elevation of bishops and cardinals and RC apologists among the trads. I want to say the rad trads brought the celebrity impulse with them, but I guess we already had JPII, Sheen and even Angelica, not to forget every possible manifestation of our Lady. Maybe it’s just that RC do evangelicalism better, including transforming the city with outreach and religious orders.
Sdb, Bryan is just a noumenalist. He made a supernaturally inspired faith move into his paradigm, he can’t exchange it for a better one unless he recants his faith. Bryan has now doubled down by getting paid for his faith paradigm. He can’t stop believing.
LikeLike
Clete,
Call us when the OPC & The URCNA even have a Synod on the Family or whatever this thing is called.
You’re heading in a dangerous direction and you know it.
Bryan taking this new “rigorist” tack is so telling. He’s got to shape-shift to defend whatever the Church comes up with. He’ll end up a raging liberal if necessary to stay in step with the Pope.
LikeLike
So we are at a maximum two more synods away from the RCC accepting any form of sexual lifestyle as valid and eligible for ordination?
Nearly all of the dozens of RCs in my life are anxious to applaud this
LikeLike
Susan – Do you know that Catholicism has official teaching even though there are some or many who ignore it?
Erik – Why no church discipline against those who ignore it?
Does the trend appear to be toward discipline or toward accommodation?
Are you a Rigorist or a liberal? Or just one with blind trust in the Roman Catholic Church whatever happens?
LikeLike
Indeed, is there a religious organization (now or ever) anywhere in the universe with worse discipline than RCism? From abortion-loving liberal politicians, to socialist liberationists, to assorted murderous fascists of yesteryear — what must one do to be disciplined? OK, get divorced. I get it.
LikeLike
Susan – I think that you have good questions. First of all, I don’t necessarily agree that there is a group confusion. There may be some who are confused, and I’m just speculating, but at the end of the day when everything finishes up there will be coherency;all we have to do is wait for it. So even if someone or a few are confused there is a way to straighten out the confusion sooner or later, just as there was regarding other doctrines from the past. Also, anyone going up to receive our Lord is going to be doing so with a heart of sincere repentance and devotion. God knows when a person wants to submit fully to Him, so if there is a right intention, that is what is our Lord will see and care about.
Erik – Can I get the name and number of your Pharmacist?
LikeLike
All kinds of RCs in my life got divorced and all they do is say that earlier marriages were a mistake and they are declaeed scott free to do whatever they want to do with whomever and whenever
LikeLike
D.G. – Oh, wait. Rome has better buildings, fancier garb, and a bank.
Erik – With free checking and a choice of either a cooler or a set of jumper cables for opening a new account (while supplies last).
LikeLike
doubleMV, but that’s not how you introduced yourself. Call me wary.
LikeLike
Erik, haven’t you heard, foxy lame is moving to Kenya.
LikeLike
erik, you left out the Benedict XVI bobble head or the the St. Peter’s snow globe.
LikeLike
But, DGH< you left out the Popemobile. http://www.ship-of-fools.com/gadgets/pope/media/pocket_popemobile.jpg
Can you imagine being a 6 year old boy opening your present and it's a Popemobile?
LikeLike
DG
“doubleMV, but that’s not how you introduced yourself. Call me wary.”
Darn…you’re good. You shouldn’t be such a literalist.
LikeLike
Susan,
“History says that Calvin was run out of France and took to the French speaking Switzerland and had even fellow Protestants run out of Geneva. He essentially established a theocracy in Geneva and then proceeded to fing a way to harmonize Lutheran theology with Zwinglianism.( subordinationism was hard to rectify)”
I know Bryan isn’t a fan of learning from historical scholarship (something about an appeal to authority fallacy), but you really should read some professional historians who have examined Calvin and Geneva if you’re going to make such claims.
The day CTCers start taking secondary historical literature seriously (i.e., engaging with the claims of historians who disagree with your historical claims) is the day I start taking CTCers seriously. As it is, CTC is oddly anti-intellectual. I don’t mean this to be a snarky jab, but an observation from a professional historian.
LikeLike
Erik,
“You’re heading in a dangerous direction and you know it.”
Thank you for demonstrating my point. The synod didn’t implode Catholicism (despite the nate silver predictions here), but surely next year it will, or the year after, or whenever.
Darryl,
“it’s called R-O-M-A-N Catholicism.”
Yes, it’s called Roman C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C-I-S-M – you know that whole “universal, world-wide” thing? I know it’s hard to take off the western glasses in suburban Pennsylvania but maybe you can give it a try.
“If you’re going to go all in on infallibility and magisterium, I’m now supposed to look to Asia or Africa? What Basilicas do they have? What secret archives? What relics?”
Yep you and Kasper definitely would enjoy drinks together. Why do you think Francis invited these lame-o’s from Asia and Africa to the synod? Why do you think conservatives from the west were invited (“but he reassigned Burke!”). He’s just trying to make things look good? I guess next synod he’ll not invite them since he’s got that liberal agenda thing he needs to push.
LikeLike
As far as I know, Cletus grew up RC so he has a bit of an excuse for not understanding. But anyone who went to a Reformed seminary and studied the history of Machen and Princeton has no excuse. It was the formal statement of orthodox Christianity and the tolerance of ministers who actually disagreed with it in practice that was the spark that lit the fuse. When you have a bunch of people looking to tow the orthodox line on marriage in the RC but then want to develop new pastoral practices that contradict them, you’ve got the PCUSA all over again. Sure, the teaching on the books hasn’t changed, so you improperly divorced people are still guilty of sin (wink, wink)—here’s the Eucharist cause you can interpret the infallible Magisterium anyway you want.
Or as Francis said, “Who am I to judge.”
LikeLike
CVD: Yes, it’s called Roman C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C-I-S-M – you know that whole “universal, world-wide” thing?
Well, yes.
Historically, the reason for that is that the Roman church claimed to be the universal, world-wide church. Everyone else recognized that it was merely Roman. The English language decided to split the difference.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Why do you think Francis invited these lame-o’s from Asia and Africa to the synod? Why do you think conservatives from the west were invited (“but he reassigned Burke!”). He’s just trying to make things look good? I guess next synod he’ll not invite them since he’s got that liberal agenda thing he needs to push.
Yeah, and the PCUSA invites all of its ministers, even the conservative ones to their general assembly. And the Lambeth conference invites them all as well, coming up with the brilliant solution to allow the liberals and conservatives to both be in good standing and fellowship with archbishop of Canterbury despite opposing beliefs on, well, just about everything. Invitation doesn’t mean anyone’s listening. And since you’ve got a substantial number of bishops wanting to value homosexual orientation, if you’re not concerned they you aren’t paying attention.
And on what basis can you criticize Kasper? He’s a cardinal in good standing with the Vatican. Unless they give him the boot, His reading and intent is at least as equally valid as the conservatives.
LikeLike
Jeff said:
Historically, the reason for that is that the Roman church claimed to be the universal, world-wide church. Everyone else recognized that it was merely Roman. The English language decided to split the difference
Hard to take the whole universal thing seriously when for centuries the only way you could get to the papacy was to be Italian. But historical facts are convenient to ignore when you want to.
LikeLike
Erik
“Thanks for doing us a big favor and dropping out.”
You’re welcome!
I realized I was a cull and didn’t quite have the academic acumen and stuffiness to keep up. Was I with Frame or DG? Was I with FV or with PCA? Was I with pope Sproul or pope Keller? Or maybe I should feel my oats and go with a little Piper or MacArthur? “Grace To You..”..oh..only if you agree with me! But what about my baby’s baptism…I should…I shouldn’t…I should…I shouldn’t. I like how MacAruthur spinkles in a little dispensationalism just to keep it interesting. So, should I be covenental or new covenental? Or better yet…I think I will follow Driscoll–he keeps it real! I don’t even want to bring up the New Perspective…N.T. Wright is just a lightweight anyway! I’m starting to feel schizophrenic! So many pope’s…I mean pastors/scholars…Would the real shepherd please stand up?! I mean unity is just a suggestion anyway–well I guess that depends on who you ask, right? Should I take that literal or figurative? How in the heck should I worship…Regulative or Not?
But what about you Erik? You must be a smart guy. You’ve got it figured out….what are the Scripture’s telling to you today? I admit…I can’t hang with you guys!
LikeLike
foxy lame, you think Francis is against the West’s progressives? You may be more gullible than Susan.
Burke? I missed it. Where’s he from? Africa?
LikeLike
MV, so you don’t like the diversity. Where do you find unity? Prayer in public schools?
LikeLike
Darryl,
That blog article that used a analogy to “Hook” was very sweet, but I didn’t convert because I had read or viewed inspiring conversion stories. In fact I had not read of one story or watched one story from Marcus Grodi’s show before I was received, not even Scott Hauns story. I was reading CtC because the articles were intellectually convincing. I wasn’t reading history to see which people had the most crime and evil acts, because that wasn’t going aid me since I knew that men have done atrocious things to each other.
As I’ve said before, I went through a period of ecclesial agnosticism and didn’t have a safe place to rest my faith in Christ. A couple of times while I was driving songs would come on the radio that would cause me panic attacks because I was so confused and distraught. Songs like Depech Mode’s, Own Personal Jesus, REM’s, Losing My Religion, The Beatle’s, Let It Be, and Zeplin’s Stairway to Heaven.
The decision came down to the truth that there must be one visible church or there is no way to know if Christianity is a myth. I take comfort in the truth that God has not left us orphans. It is the only way to know what heresy is and the only way schism can be some a phenomenon. It’s absolutely a requirement and behold ther She is. It’s truly an incredible grace that there is a place that has authorization to distribute more sacramental grace, and tender nuture.To give us a book and tell us to read it for ourselves would be unloving. Like parents educate and train their children, the church does the same.
LikeLike
DG
“MV, so you don’t like the diversity. Where do you find unity? Prayer in public schools?”
Did I say I don’t like diversity? Come on DG, you’re a smart guy. There’s a difference between diversity and unity, right? Maybe I’m not correct–as I’ve mentioned I’m just an academic and theological cull. Maybe if I get a plaid checkered sport coat, pipe, and a library card I can get this dang thing figured out.
LikeLike
Sorry that my writing is so fussy and choppy. My thoughts are scattered, and I’m on an ipad as well as trying to do other things at the same time.
LikeLike
What these Catholic apologists remind me of is a seasoned citizen who continues to hold to something for decades even though what they are holding to bears no resemblance to what they originally embraced.
My late grandpa was a retired small business owner who was still a Democrat four decades after the Democrats ceased giving a crap about small business.
If FDR was for small business then, doggone it, so is Bill Clinton & Al Gore.
O.K. Grandpa. It didn’t help that he was also a Methodist.
LikeLike
Clete,
O.K. Then all is well.
If Francis doesn’t deliver the goods to liberals do we conclude he is:
(A) Senile
(B) A con man
(C) A tease
(D) Not infallible or able to impose his will on conservatives
None of these are good news for Catholics.
LikeLike
MV- But what about you Erik? You must be a smart guy. You’ve got it figured out….what are the Scripture’s telling to you today? I admit…I can’t hang with you guys!
Erik – Just chillin’ with Jesus man.
Mostly looking for a place I can stay awake and not miss brunch.
LikeLike
MV,
First step is to stay away from all Reformed Baptists.
Second step would be to be wary of any PCA unless you really know the minister.
Third step would be to consider becoming Lutheran if there is no URC or OPC in your neighborhood.
LikeLike
Susan – A couple of times while I was driving songs would come on the radio that would cause me panic attacks because I was so confused and distraught. Songs like Depech Mode’s, Own Personal Jesus, REM’s, Losing My Religion, The Beatle’s, Let It Be, and Zeplin’s Stairway to Heaven.
Erik – I can relate. Last night a radio station cut down “Free Bird” when I was trying to educate my boys and I just about lost it.
How about just focusing on Jesus and tuning out ecclesiology for awhile?
What station still plays Depeche Mode?
LikeLike
If anyone hasn’t heard of him, I LOVE THIS guy. If ever I were to become a papist, I would get Micheal Voris to disciple me. 😀 Which he would do. His office is 15 minutes from where I sit typing this comment.
He and especially his personal assistant Simon would burn me at the stake, today, if they could. I mean this quite literally. I respect that. Truly I do. I want the church of Trent back. Where the canons and decrees make it perfectly clear who is who and what is what. I WANT to be anathematized by those standards. Voris agrees. He is NOT down with all this groovadelic dialectic progressivism wherein magisterial dogma doesn’t necessarily inform pastoral practice. I’d love it if they made the man pope. Nancy Pelosi would not though.
I keep trying to meet him, but Simon keeps telling me I’m an enemy of Christ and emissary of Satan because of my opposition to the holy see. A few days ago Voris himself agreed to meet with me if I could tell him I wasn’t fatally opposed to my eventual communion with the one true holy apostolic church. I haven’t answered him yet.
The RCC will never overtly embrace homosexuality. To do so would be to mortally undermine the very authority by which it could be done. She will however continue down this primrose path of perversity. Ironically I suspect we’ll see the ordination of men who lean decidedly limp wristed long before we do the ordination of women.
LikeLike
On a serious note let me say that Journey was/is one of the worst bands in history and a scourge on humanity. Now back to our regularly-scheduled Erik.
LikeLike
Susan, psst. Jesus rose from the dead. We don’t see him.
You put your trust in Christ.
Then you deduce there must be a visible church on earth.
Which is it?
LikeLike
MV, what’s your point other than than you’re
stupidhumble?LikeLike
I do think Erik is the star of this blog. He makes me laugh even when it’s at my expense. Chortles, you don’t like the song, “Lights”?
LikeLike
Darryl,
You haven’t been where I have. Try believing in the God you can’t see but having no shortage of “biblical” communities. It ‘s quite a trip.
LikeLike
Erik,
“First step is to stay away from all Reformed Baptists.Second step would be to be wary of any PCA unless you really know the minister.Third step would be to consider becoming Lutheran if there is no URC or OPC in your neighborhood.”
OK. Thanks! I thought that was the ordo salutis. Now I can sleep well tonight. It just seems so easy…how can we get people to believe this, though? Is that spelled out in the Westminster Divines? I think you should publish a book..”The 3 step process to finding the church Christ founded.” What do you think? If it wasn’t for that Joel Osteen guy that keeps flooding the airwaves and bookshelves.
LikeLike
Eric: “Third step would be to consider becoming Lutheran if there is no URC or OPC in your neighborhood.”
No, look for an RPCNA before going Lutheran.
LikeLike
DG,
“MV, what’s your point other than than you’re stupid humble?”
I don’t know…maybe I’m just “stupid” but not “humble” or maybe “stupid humble”?
What would be your suggestion to figuring this church thing out? How did you do it? I mean, how did you wade through all the theological “stuff” and “teachings” and “diversity”? What led you to the solid rock of the OPC? Did your bosom burn when you read the Westminster in light of the OPC for the first time? Was there a shekinah that canopied a pic of Machen and said “move over Joseph Smith”? I need some answers….this is getting tiring!!
LikeLike
MV, the path is simple
Childhood Fundy
Take ten years off from 22 to 33, give or take
Reentry by means of huge Evangelical thingy
Reformed Baptist
Finally a True Reformed church, either a good one or one for total nutjobs, nature has a way of leading you to the one you will be happier at
LikeLike
Susan,
Let’s not get confused – Tom Van Dyke is the star of this blog, when his PET Computer and 1995 modem allows his comments to get through.
Him and Greg The Terrible when he gets it rolling.
They’ve both claimed the crown that was formerly shared by Doug Sowers and Richard Smith.
Without these stars I would stick to the religion chat room on AOL.
Catholic antagonists are minor starts but they just don’t bring it quite like non-Catholic characters.
LikeLike
Susan, I’ll try that right after believing in a God you can’t see and then communicating in a known tongue.
LikeLike
Matt, well if you read me other than in Modern Reformation, you might be able to figure it out.
Somehow, I don’t think you really care.
So why don’t you come clean? We have a sense of what you don’t like, but what are your turn ons?
LikeLike
Kent,
Now that’s funny! I like a little light humor.
“nature has a way of leading you to the one you will be happier at”
I agree! I’m still trying to figure out which one makes me the happiest! A church next door has a great breakfast bar with a great sound & light show with some great guitar solos for worship. Oh, and the pastor is 6’9 and benches 350lbs! But, then again it depends on which mood I’m in. This “nature” thing has me reeling.
Thanks for the help!
LikeLike
MV, does being a high school principal produce more happiness than being a Baptist pastor?
LikeLike
DG,
“Somehow, I don’t think you really care.”
Nope. You are wrong this time. I do care. I’m serious. Maybe you are misreading me?
“come clean”?
With what? I’m an open book. You seem to know me already. Teacher meeting? Prayer in public schools? I did a google search too! Are you sure you have the right guy? I told you we should hang out sometime…but then you deferred.
“What do you like?”
Truth! What else is there? I used to like Santa…but then I realized he wasn’t real.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted October 24, 2014 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
Susan,
Let’s not get confused – Tom Van Dyke is the star of this blog, when his PET Computer and 1995 modem allows his comments to get through.
Him and Greg The Terrible when he gets it rolling.
They’ve both claimed the crown that was formerly shared by Doug Sowers and Richard Smith.
Without these stars I would stick to the religion chat room on AOL.
Catholic antagonists are minor starts but they just don’t bring it quite like non-Catholic characters.
Merci, Erik, but Susan illustrates Thomas More’s argument against William Tyndale perfectly: In the end, unless you’re a massive scholar of Hebrew and Greek, you’re going to have to take someone else’s word for translating and interpreting the Bible.
She believes that the only solution is to trust in the Holy Spirit, that Christ wouldn’t leave his church in error and darkness for 1000 years until the Reformation showed up.
As in More’s day, you have no answer for that, except Darryl’s mockery. Darryl’s mockery is the REAL star of this blog, because it’s an admission of defeat. The game inside the game. ;-P
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted October 24, 2014 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
MV,
First step is to stay away from all Reformed Baptists.
Second step would be to be wary of any PCA unless you really know the minister.
Third step would be to consider becoming Lutheran if there is no URC or OPC in your neighborhood.
Now THAT’S interesting!
LikeLike
Tom, if you are going protestant confessional it’s better to team up with people who actually read and preach their confessions than those who post it in their website and ignore it the rest of the time
LikeLike
MV, then be truthful about who you are and what your interest in OL (or more) is. You’re playing cutsie. Aw shucks, me I not know like you guys have knowledge.
LikeLike
Maybe interesting but not acceptable to me due to worship (opposed to idolatry) priority. Most Lutherans are way too close to Romish errors with regard to sacraments and images. And here’s a disturbing image: TVD’s old ‘do was about as much like that nasty Steve Perry’s as it was like a true mullet (French pronunciation: MUH-lay). TVD, your sincerity level reminds me of S. Perry, too.
LikeLike
The Synod, even if it does embrace Cardinal Kaspers proposal, will still not be reversing Catholic Dogma. Would such a change be disastrous? Sure. Would it be incredibly misleading and confusing? Yes. Would it negate the RC apologetic? Hardly. The fear is not that the Pope is *changing* church teaching but that he *undermining* it.
On a non-polemical side note…. anyone think this could be the spark that derails the liberal V2 agenda and moves the Church back on track? How long has it been since we have had *numerous* Cardinals openly criticizing and confronting the pope? Anyone know? Its been a hot minute. Most “conservative” catholics have preferred to maintain the status quo and allow liberals to run rampant and trads to be marginalized for decades….. Things are getting interesting.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Yeah that’s coherent, the pope can undermine church teaching. What happened to infallibility? And what good is ecclesiastical infallibility if the church can undermine itself? Sounds awfully Protestant.
As far as your speculation, you’re acting like the laity has a responsibility to hold the magisterium accountable. Welcome to Protestantism. Of course Rome has no mechanism for holding the magisterium accountable because by definition it doesn’t need that. What right do you have to question the good Kasper?
LikeLike
Tom
She believes that the only solution is to trust in the Holy Spirit, that Christ wouldn’t leave his church in error and darkness for 1000 years until the Reformation showed up.
Newsflash. The reformed don’t believe this. To say the church can be wrong doesn’t mean that it has been wrong on everything. We’re not Mormons. Even Rome gets that–for now until they start accepting lds baptisms anyway.
LikeLike
Robert,
Your comment is uninteresting. Next.
LikeLike
@KW
You keep bringing up Africa and Asia as if they are somehow exceptional. The thing is that internationally there is a positive correlation between the percentage of RCs in the population and percentage agreeing that divorce and gay sex are morally acceptable. The pressure from the laity is overwhelmingly pointing in one direction, and the “sense of the faithful” doesn’t align with Rome.
Looking in finer detail at the situation in the US, RCs with their superior paradigm, unity, and epistemological status are to the “left” of protestants on divorce and gay marriage. Clearly there is a break between the theory and the observations. Of course you can save the appearance of any paradigm with post-hoc assertions that explain away the putatively spurious results. That’s perhaps a good reason not to use the concept of the paradigm to describe your faith.
Perhaps I am being a rigorist, but doesn’t it give you some qualms that the more Catholic and less protestant a group is, the less (o)rthodox the theological and moral beliefs are (meaning things like belief in the trinity, deity of Christ, hell, etc…). Why doesn’t the superior paradigm result in greater orthodox belief or moral fruit?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I know it’s hard when Rome is infallibly undermining dogma, but you’re the one who said that the infallible magisterium is infallibly undermining 1000s of years of unaltered dogma. For some reason, Luther was an arch-heretic for doing what you’re doing, but you’re not. Talk about being your own pope.
LikeLike
koser ken, ” How long has it been since we have had *numerous* Cardinals openly criticizing and confronting the pope? Anyone know?”
Protestants? Jansenists? Americanists?
A guy who thinks the papacy is what saves Roman Catholicism from Protestantism thinks bishops dissenting from the pope is a good thing? Roman Catholic intellectual tradition? Psshaw.
LikeLike
Chortles weakly
Posted October 24, 2014 at 5:12 pm | Permalink
Maybe interesting but not acceptable to me due to worship (opposed to idolatry) priority. Most Lutherans are way too close to Romish errors with regard to sacraments and images.
Yes, that’s why Erik’s comment was so interesting.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s not interesting. Calvinist humor is even worse than English food.
LikeLike
sdb,
That is because most Catholics are woefully ignorant of their religion and probably wouldn’t identify themselves as “Catholic” if they knew what the Church was all about. We need to do a better job of educating lay-people on the faith, no doubt about it! I think protestants definitively do a much better job where this is concerned. I don’t see how any of this makes African and Asian Christians unexceptional? I have had several protestant friends tell me that they are likewise impressed with the growth and maturity of Christianity in Africa. Perhaps you aren’t getting the same reports?
A couple of points. 1. Lay Catholics are to the “left” of which protestants? The PCUSA? The ELCA? The Anglicans? The simple fact of the matter is that the bulk of *all* so called christians are infected with modernism. The reason why you think your group is better off is because “schism” is a live option for protestants while it isn’t for Roman Catholics. If you don’t like the way things are going… you just start up your very own “pure” church and marvel at how wonderful everything is. I have written on this phenomena before here….
http://www.coffeehouseinquisition.com/defense-catholic-land/
2. Meanwhile, when it comes to doctrine (or as you call it… “theory”) The Catholic Church sets an amazing standard for the Christian world with its teachings on sex and the family. I don’t think any other denomination can come close in this area of theology. Is there dissent? Well, sure, but who said there wouldn’t be?
DG,
“MV, then be truthful about who you are and what your interest in OL (or more) is. You’re playing cutsie. Aw shucks, me I not know like you guys have knowledge.”
Who said I wasn’t being truthful? Playing “cutsie”? You don’t understand? I think you do. I read a lot of your “cutsie” comments on here. I’ve asked questions and you have not answered. You avoid the questions or you revert to “cutsie” comments about who you think I am. The problem is that at the end of the day you don’t know how to answer the questions because you have no way to prove what you are proposing here on this site except by your own academic intellect and conformity with your own standards. So, is that a form of theological Pelagianism? Semi? But wait…is Pelagianism wrong? Semi? How did the OPC deal with the Pelagian controversey in the 5th century? Oh wait…the OPC wasn’t around then. But, the Catholic Church couldn’t be right either because they are full of themselves with tyrant popes and councils and all sorts of man made traditions. They even had disagreements amongst themselves then, as they do today. I bet they ruled against Pelagius just because he was a threat to the throne…or some other concocted reformed/protestant idea.
Did I say I was Catholic? Orthodox? Baptist?? I can’t stand baptist–especially the southern type. Seems a little too “local” if you ask me.
No. I’m just a seeker of truth. I’m my own man looking for a few followers to start my own church. But, I can’t stand the misrepresentation that I read on this site against the Catholic Church.
I will leave you alone now. Did I have you intrigued? You were worried. You looked me up–or at least you thought you did. Good thing I fabricated my email since I know the integrity around here. “Your email is NEVER published nor shared.” I guess it depends on your interpretation of that, right? You are as bad as though wicked popes. Was I in your database? You do have a lot of time and access to info on the job. You should check into the sacraments–they do transform you know. They are not mere symbols (darn Zwinglians/Baptists). Have you read Calvin? He liked the sacraments. Luther especially. Calvin rode the fence a little more though. You should read Mathison sometime. Then again I’m not sure he’s got that whole solo & sola thing figured out.
Keep up the good work! Maybe we can get together again sometime.
LikeLike
Tom, English food > Dutch food.
LikeLike
T – Ironically I suspect we’ll see the ordination of men who lean decidedly limp wristed long before we do the ordination of women.
Erik – By “we’ll see” you mean not counting the last 20 or so Centuries?
It takes a unique man to not want to marry a woman. Either a unique man or a man who does not like what you do with a married woman.
Keep trying meet with that local priest. You guys sound like you would hit it off.
LikeLike
Robert,
The Catholic Church does not claim to be infallible in matters of church discipline. Please do try and keep up with he conversation. We have only been having it for years now. Neither the Pope nor Cardinal Kasper attempted to “infallibly change” Church dogma. The indissolubility of a sacramental marriage was never called into question. The more liberal theories pertaining to Church discipline were removed by a 2/3 majority of Cardinals. I am not criticizing Church teaching. I am criticizing what a minority brought up for consideration…. and which was rejected overwhelmingly. If you think that is “uncatholic” of me, please feel free to quote catholic canon law to prove your case…. I wont hold my breath waiting, O King of unsupported assertions.
LikeLike
DG, did you have to drive him to promiscuous punctuation? But at least the cutesie stage is over.
LikeLike
Susan – Darryl,
You haven’t been where I have. Try believing in the God you can’t see but having no shortage of “biblical” communities. It ‘s quite a trip.
Erik- You can look at this in one of two fundamentally different ways. You can say there is one true church that is full of both tools & very cool people and many false churches that are full of both tools & very cool people
OR
You can say that churches are various degrees of true or false and are full of both tools & very cool people.
I do the latter & deduce that the very cool people are the ones that the Holy Spirit is working in.
The former just doesn’t make much sense because the one true church would not contain so many tools.
LikeLike
DGHART,
I can think that it was a good and righteous thing when Paul “withstood Peter to his face” and still hold to Peter as the rock. Sometimes, Peter and his successors need to be checked. Although, never abandoned or separated from
LikeLike
MV – how can we get people to believe this, though?
Erik – The cool people will figure it out for themselves eventually.
LikeLike
Matt,
Smaller P&R churches are good too, as long as one knows what they are getting into.
LikeLike
MV,
Duh, he met Jesus then he met Machen. Where else would he have gone?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
“The fear is not that the Pope is *changing* church teaching but that he *undermining* it.”
Do you not see how Robert took from this statement that you think it is possible for an infallible pope is able to undermine church teaching? Or by “church teaching” did you mean “discipline”? If so, then you shouldn’t be surprised when readers misunderstand your intended meaning.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke arrives late circa Morty Malnick:
LikeLike
Kenneth,
“Sometimes, Peter and his successors need to be checked.”
Checked against what authority?
LikeLike
MV – A church next door has a great breakfast bar with a great sound & light show with some great guitar solos for worship
Erik – Have seconds at the breakfast bar and wait to go into the service until that other junk is over.
LikeLike
Tom – In the end, unless you’re a massive scholar of Hebrew and Greek, you’re going to have to take someone else’s word for translating and interpreting the Bible.
Erik – Only problem is when the translator/interpreter thinks he has the power to view the text as optional and overrule it where convenient (not to mention profitable).
That’s a poor translator/interpreter.
We’re not all lonely, lost kittens in search of a guide through life.
LikeLike
sdb,
I was going to call you a Rigorist (Bryan’s new insult) but you beat me to it.
Rigorist.
LikeLike
MV, the board is what it is, it is not going to be taken over by other agendas
Good luck finding any other board that is open for comments, deleting a few deserved ones (had my share on here) and punishing only the most incorrigible knuckle heads
LikeLike
Tom might go to MV’s church. They appear to be equally befuddled.
LikeLike
@KW
I’m not sure that’s exactly right. I mean it may be true that you need to do a better job of educating, but I interacted with a number of thoughtful RC as a grad student at ND. The problem was not that they didn’t know better, but that they knew and rejected the official teaching (or rejected that it was a legitimate official teaching) – it was about the spirit not the letter as they liked to say. Note as well as that the teachers (priests) in many cases reject church teaching (as Rod Dreher relates the example of the priest in Dallas recommending that he and his wife go on birth control). If you don’t like the demands from one parish, you can always move to another more to your liking. Almost sounds…protestant.
Roman catholics are to the left of the US generally (christian and non) on the issues of divorce and ssm, not just protestants. They are much further left than protestants as a whole. Your hypothesis that this is because we can schism doesn’t hold water. Let’s say that we all held on to our same beliefs and united under one umbrella…a single united protestant church – we’d be significantly to the right of the catholic church on the issues of divorce and ssm. Further, I’m not sure it is quite right to call the “divisions” among protestants schisms – my baptism is recognized in all these protestant churches, and I am welcome to take communion in them as well. We really are in a broader communion in that sense. If the divisions have done anything among protestants, they have quarantined the craziest folks… not such a bad deal.
When you look at all the countries in the world where there is a measurable Catholic presence (including Africa and Asia), the larger the share of the population that is Catholic, the more accepting the society is of divorce and ssm. The rise of Catholicism in a country is positively correlated with support of SSM and divorce. Now I understand that correlation doesn’t imply causation, but at the very least it ought to give one pause. Most of the “growth” in Christianity in Latin America and Africa is intimately tied to the prosperity gospel, and it infects every group (RC and prot alike).
95% of Catholic women of childbearing age use birth control. That’s not dissent, that’s wholesale rejection. Sensus fidelium indeed. More to the point, the RC church adds to the restrictions laid out in scripture and thus creates a new burden. They’ve overstepped their authority.
Natch… It was my attempt at a generous ecumenism to allow that a conservative Catholic could be orthodox. Of course, you guys rejected the gospel and added to the demands of scripture to such an extent that your’s is no longer a legitimate church. But I’ll allow you’ve retained an orthodox understanding of the nature of God, Christ, the trinity, etc… on paper at least. Your mass goers don’t seem to believe all that stuff though, I know, I know, the paradigm is perfect – it’s just putting it into practice that’s a problem. It seems to me remarkably irresponsible to call people to a communion that does such a rotten job communicating the most fundamental basics of the faith to her members.
That’s not consistent with Paul’s opening lines in his epistle to the Galatians.
LikeLike
loser ken, schism isn’t an option for Roman Catholics? Think Avignon Papacy.
LikeLike
MV, oh, well, aren’t you so elusive. Just a seeker of truth. So please tell me what I have written about Roman Catholicism that isn’t true. Is it the whole truth? No. But it’s not the features that you hear from the apologists or from would be apologists like myself. Go ahead, take the plunge wherever you are in So. Illinois. I P Addresses don’t lie.
And I might even try to answer your questions if you asked less than 10 each comment, and if you didn’t give them all away with a manner that says they’re rhetorical.
“Keep up the good word!”
Liar.
LikeLike
MG, no, MV still wants to hang out. As if.
LikeLike
loser ken, first Rome is never good at discipline. Then Paul is good at disciplining Peter.
In point of fact, your church was pretty good at discipline before Vatican 2. Pray, pay, obey was a cliche for a reason. The Index of Banned Books. The Spanish and Roman Inquisitions?
You sell your church short.
But then it went all in on modernity and has to be careful about saying “sin.”
Boo!
LikeLike
sdb, you’re baptism is also recognized by Rome (which after Vatican 2 is promiscuously flexible):
LikeLike
loser ken, do you know how incredibly stupid this is:
Let’s say Protestantism doesn’t have a mechanism and that Rome does. Then why doesn’t Francis mow his lawn? Is he shiftless? Is he blind? Does he want to protect the environment?
Whatever the answer, you have just indicated that the mechanism you have is fallible. If the pope knows the church has problems and won’t use the tools he has, why do you trust him? Why do you even go on to insist that the tools are infallible? You’ve only made a better case than I against your church.
At some point you really do need to wonder how good your pastors are and whether your case for a superior or existent mechanism is not precisely the reason why your church is in the state it is. When you depend on monarchy, you may eventually get tyranny. Even Aquinas knew that.
LikeLike
Matt, not if 2k counts for anything. Sure, it’s not a mark of the church, but if it matters then the Lutherans beat the Covenanters.
LikeLike
sdb is feeling it tonight.
That last comment was like Eric Hosmer’s at bat in the 6th.
11 pitches, Line drive, RBI.
LikeLike
Herrera for the Royals throwing 101 MPH in the 6th & 7th for the Royals.
That is sick.
Now a rookie coming in to finish off the 7th. Pitched in the College World Series this summer.
This is what happens when you are bad for years and figure out how to scout and draft players.
LikeLike
Erik, the speed gun is inflated from 5-10 mph for the fans.
I was in Cincy and they claimed 4 relievers hit over 100 in one game
That was as real as certain high school dropouts claiming they’ve read 45,000 of poorly scanned Puritan works in Olde English
LikeLike
Susan and Ken on the Pope getting his house in order are really similar to Doug Wilson and our Postmillennialist brothers on Postmillennialiam. When questioned on the issue they ultimately always resort to “well, this isn’t all going to come to fruition for thousands of years.” When your time horizon is virtually limitless you can affirm about anything without having to undergo any scrutiny. I can always promise that my garage is going to get organized eventually — just not this weekend.
Ken also makes the error in setting Roman Catholicism against “Protestantism”, as if those are the only two options. Not all Protestants are created equal, nor do they all have fellowship with one another. The proper response to that error is “that’s your paradigm, man.”
LikeLike
One pitcher told of coming back from injury and saw he was throwing 93-94 on the scoreboard and felt great
He was pulverised and when he saw the game tape it showed he was only reaching 86 tops
All those in the room has a good laugh when he said the scoreboard dhoelwed mid-90s
LikeLike
Curt- Why didn’t you state earlier you are an Anarchist? That something worth talking about. What strand do you follow?
LikeLike
You mean he has stick a huge safety pin thru his cheek?
LikeLike
“The Catholic Church does not claim to be infallible in matters of church discipline. Please do try and keep up with he conversation. We have only been having it for years now. Neither the Pope nor Cardinal Kasper attempted to “infallibly change” Church dogma. The indissolubility of a sacramental marriage was never called into question. The more liberal theories pertaining to Church discipline were removed by a 2/3 majority of Cardinals.”
Yes, that’s the point, isn’t it? And of course discipline can also be situated in the context of the hierarchy of truths. The dogmas of triadology and christology are not comparable with church discipline.
LikeLike
sbd,
Oh, puh-lease. The people filling up the statistics are not “thoughtful ND grads” or seminary professors. They are your average, run of the mill, ignorant, cultural catholics.
Based off of what? Where are you getting these numbers? So far as i can tell, there are virtually ZERO major protestant denominations who forbid divorce and several of the largest bodies have already officially endorsed and condone SSM. Polling “catholics” throughout the US is misleading because to many being “catholic” is like being “jewish”. People identify themselves as Catholic as a kind of cultural thing. Catholic by birth. Show me the numbers on Catholics who attend mass on a weekly basis and lets see what the polls show.
This is delusional on so many levels. Of course it is appropriate to call protestant division “schism”. What other word is there? The defacto mechanism to preserve “orthodoxy” in your paradigm is the sin of schism. Period. Sure, your current micro-denomination champions what you call “orthodoxy”, but will it in another 80 years? Or will we need three more denominations in that time span? Unfortunately, your “churches” decide what “orthodoxy” is by popular vote. Which is why you are so proud of the fact that abunch of red necks in the bible belt would vote no to SSM. The majority of those same people would probably have no clue what “sola fide” means or how they are justified but they will definitely vote no to ssm. Honestly, whats the value of a pew poll? Official Church documents, creeds and confessions are so much more useful…..
If correlation does not imply causation, why would it give me pause? Plus, I still think your numbers are bogus. All of the data that i can find implies that nearly ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of all African Catholics polled rejected SSM. In only two countries (The U.S. and Spain) was there a majority of Catholics that favored it, and only by small margins. I think that there is more going on over seas than the prosperity gospel. But if you want to contest that based off of your imaginary statistic generator, so be it.
There you go again with your imaginary statistic generator. Your getting your numbers from Nancy Pelosi now? Goodness…. That poll has been debunked a million times.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html
Your argument is hugely undermined by the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and pull numbers from either A. out of thin air or B. From freaking Nancy Pelosi.Things are not great currently and the Church is factually in crises…. but things are (thankfully) not half as bad as what you are making them out to be
LikeLike
Robert,
“Yeah, and the PCUSA invites all of its ministers, even the conservative ones to their general assembly…Invitation doesn’t mean anyone’s listening.”
I have no idea if conservative ministers even exist in the PCUSA today given the constant wailing here. So let’s grant that they exist and go to these conferences – are they heard? Do they make any difference? Now for Rome during the synod, were the conservatives heard? Did they make any difference?
“And since you’ve got a substantial number of bishops wanting to value homosexual orientation, if you’re not concerned they you aren’t paying attention.”
I’d be concerned if the “Rome’s totally gonna approve or open the door to SSM” predictions came to fruition. They didn’t. Do you think liberals in the church is a new phenomenon? It’s really not that exciting anymore.
“And on what basis can you criticize Kasper? He’s a cardinal in good standing with the Vatican. Unless they give him the boot, His reading and intent is at least as equally valid as the conservatives.”
Just to clarify, I was bringing that up in reply to Darryl in the context of his apparent and continued refusal to analyze Catholicism outside of the West – when he said “what basilicas are in Asia and Africa”, it was similar to Kasper’s tone in his much publicized and criticized comments about Africa and its bishops – http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/10/dont-listen-to-the-africans-says-catholic-cardinal
“Hard to take the whole universal thing seriously when for centuries the only way you could get to the papacy was to be Italian. But historical facts are convenient to ignore when you want to.”
The PCA is headquartered in Georgia. OPC in Pennsylvania. Does that mean PCA isn’t really the presbyterian church of America but just Georgia?
Darryl,
“foxy lame, you think Francis is against the West’s progressives?”
Why’d he invite the conservatives? Seems odd to torpedo his own liberal machinations. As you could tell from his closing speech, he wants to avoid both trad and liberal extremes so amazingly, he conducted the synod in a manner consistent with that goal.
“Burke? I missed it. Where’s he from? Africa?”
The point again is he attended (along with other outspoken and vocal western conservatives like Pell and Napier) when he easily could have been left out given his reassignment.
LikeLike
loser ken, who died and made you pope? I’m glad you’re not afraid to use the word sin.
But your own infallible hierarchy doesn’t speak that way. They come along side Protestants in the same way that a majority of the bishops want to come along side gays and divorcees.
Perhaps you remember this:
Or this:
Look mom, no “sin.”
Maybe you’re the problem with Roman Catholicism. Maybe you’re the guy going rogue and not submitting to the discipline of the infallible magisterium.
LikeLike
foxy lame,
Perhaps you’ve heard but Benedict and John Paul appointed bishops and cardinals. Perhaps you’ve also heard the progressives prize tolerance and diversity.
But if Burke thinks Francis needs to clear things up, why do you think you know the score more than Burke?
You’re smarter than this. These feeble defenses are closer to Susan than to the Callers. Why not simply double down on abstract truth with Bryan?
LikeLike
Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.
Who own earth does LG have in mind here except a few dozen Anglicans who wish they were full-blown papists but for some reason haven’t swam yet? I call BS.
LikeLike
Cletus,
I have no idea if conservative ministers even exist in the PCUSA today given the constant wailing here. So let’s grant that they exist and go to these conferences – are they heard? Do they make any difference? Now for Rome during the synod, were the conservatives heard? Did they make any difference?
If you know PCUSA history, you know that the conservatives were able to stave off changes to the church language at every assembly for about 2 decades or so, except that at each assembly and presbytery voting, their margin of victory got smaller and smaller. Meanwhile, while that was happening, everyone in the PCUSA knew that you could go to another church that blessed gay unions and not be disciplined. Similar things happened in the ELCA and other mainline bodies.
The point is that the exact same thing is happening in the RC Church. When you’ve got at least a third of your bishops happy with language that “values homosexual orientation,” then you’ve got serious liberal rot slowing capturing your leadership. And the demotion of individuals such as Burke indicates that at least the current pope is likely not going to be appointing a lot of conservatives.
Why’d he invite the conservatives? Seems odd to torpedo his own liberal machinations. As you could tell from his closing speech, he wants to avoid both trad and liberal extremes so amazingly, he conducted the synod in a manner consistent with that goal.
The same reason why the Episcopalian church is supporting sexual deviancy and yet creating some kind of option for those who oppose it to be supervised by conservative bishops—all that matters is the appearance of visible union. And, nobody wants to lose the property and income of the conservatives. And the leaders have a vested interested in maintaining the bureaucracy, which is the only way in which Rome is united.
And this idea that Francis wants to avoid both liberal and conservative extremes proves my point. That is exactly what the mainliners do—until the liberals take full control. You aren’t paying attention because your “paradigm” defines the evidence and not the other way around. Liberals aren’t stupid and they are very, very patient. If Francis is the liberal that he seems to be, all he has to do is continue to do things like demoting Burke to shift the church into a liberal direction that will bear the fruit the liberals want.
Trying to steer a course between liberals and conservatives indicates that Rome believes what it has been doing is wrong—that it has wrongly interpreted its infallible dogma. If the church cannot infallibly interpret infallible dogma, the charism of infallibility is useless. You are holding to a more Protestant view that there is infallible revelation—the Bible—that the church is not guaranteed to be infallible in interpreting and applying. All you guys do is add whatever you feel like calling tradition to Scripture. The Magisterium then fallibly interprets and applies its own documents and teaching. Which is why you are having this synod in the first place.
Keep on saying dogma doesn’t change. Dishonest liberals do the same thing with the Bible. The Bible doesn’t change, but they find all sorts of creative ways of interpreting it.
LikeLike
OK, maybe the EO and some Catholic sects — who else?
LikeLike
Are there stealthy Southern Baptists who get together and bow to the Virgin?
LikeLike
loser ken, and then there is this troubling little nugget:
LikeLike
How is it that the rad-trad RC convert who wasn’t there for Vat II and writes off much of the pastoral application of Vat II and the entire subsequent generation of cradle RCs, clergy and laity, such that they even bemoan the papacy of Francis as confusing, come on here and try to teach us in the ways of faithful RC’s? You boys and gal, need to bend the knee to your papi. If you would like instruction on the ways of your papi, I might give you my fake email address and teach you in the ways of the sanctity of religious conscience, liberation theology and Ignatian spirituality. But hear your papi:
“This motto,” the pope continues, “offers parameters to assume a correct position for discernment, in order to hear the things of God from God’s ‘point of view.’ According to St. Ignatius, great principles must be embodied in the circumstances of place, time and people. In his own way, John XXIII adopted this attitude with regard to the government of the church, when he repeated the motto, ‘See everything; turn a blind eye to much; correct a little.’ John XXIII saw all things, the maximum dimension, but he chose to correct a few, the minimum dimension. You can have large projects and implement them by means of a few of the smallest things. Or you can use weak means that are more effective than strong ones, as Paul also said in his First Letter to the Corinthians.
“This discernment takes time. For example, many think that changes and reforms can take place in a short time. I believe that we always need time to lay the foundations for real, effective change.And this is the time of discernment. Sometimes discernment instead urges us to do precisely what you had at first thought you would do later. And that is what has happened to me in recent months. Discernment is always done in the presence of the Lord, looking at the signs, listening to the things that happen, the feeling of the people, especially the poor.
“When you express too much, you run the risk of being misunderstood. The Society of Jesus can be described only in narrative form. Only in narrative form do you discern, not in a philosophical or theological explanation, which allows you rather to discuss. The style of the Society is not shaped by discussion, but by discernment, which of course presupposes discussion as part of the process. The mystical dimension of discernment never defines its edges and does not complete the thought. The Jesuit must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking.
“Ignatius is a mystic, not an ascetic,” he says. “It irritates me when I hear that the Spiritual Exercises are ‘Ignatian’ only because they are done in silence. In fact, the Exercises can be perfectly Ignatian also in daily life and without the silence. An interpretation of the Spiritual Exercises that emphasizes asceticism, silence and penance is a distorted one that became widespread even in the Society, especially in the Society of Jesus in Spain. I am rather close to the mystical movement, that of Louis Lallement and Jean-Joseph Surin. And Faber was a mystic.”
“I say these things from life experience and because I want to make clear what the dangers are. Over time I learned many things. The Lord has allowed this growth in knowledge of government through my faults and my sins. So as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, I had a meeting with the six auxiliary bishops every two weeks, and several times a year with the council of priests. They asked questions and we opened the floor for discussion. This greatly helped me to make the best decisions. But now I hear some people tell me: ‘Do not consult too much, and decide by yourself.’ Instead, I believe that consultation is very important.
“The consistories [of cardinals], the synods [of bishops] are, for example, important places to make real and active this consultation. We must, however, give them a less rigid form. I do not want token consultations, but real consultations. The consultation group of eight cardinals, this ‘outsider’ advisory group, is not only my decision, but it is the result of the will of the cardinals, as it was expressed in the general congregations before the conclave. And I want to see that this is a real, not ceremonial consultation.”
“The image of the church I like is that of the holy, faithful people of God. This is the definition I often use, and then there is that image from the Second Vatican Council’s ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church’ (No. 12). Belonging to a people has a strong theological value. In the history of salvation, God has saved a people. There is no full identity without belonging to a people. No one is saved alone, as an isolated individual, but God attracts us looking at the complex web of relationships that take place in the human community. God enters into this dynamic, this participation in the web of human relationships.
“The people itself constitutes a subject. And the church is the people of God on the journey through history, with joys and sorrows. Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks. When the dialogue among the people and the bishops and the pope goes down this road and is genuine, then it is assisted by the Holy Spirit. So this thinking with the church does not concern theologians only.
“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.
Here’s the kicker:
“This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.”
LikeLike
igasx,
I’d qualify anarchist the way Zinn would, I am an anarchist as long as I get to define it. And in reality, I am a mix. I am not a total anarchist because I see the need for the state. And I do not support any use of violence. But I do believe that we need bottom up democratic structures and we need an economic system that allows to participate in these structures. We need to note that some forms of anarchism resemble other kinds of anti-capitalist systems.
LikeLike
Curt- What’s your thoughts on the mutualism of Proudhon?
LikeLike
“Among your observations, there is one that shows the reality of the situation in a dramatic and acute way: more than half of the bishops present at the Synod, not yet the two-thirds needed but almost, have already switched (what we know as our) religion.”
It sounds like what the Catholics really need is a Machen to write an updated “Christianity and Liberalism”.
LikeLike
“We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
So if the church talks too much about morality, the moral edifice of the church will fall like a house of cards. O.K. I guess we had better give up reading the law each Sunday in Reformed Churches. We don’t want to turn people off.
LikeLike
igasx,
There are some things he says that work against each other. What I like is his observation about the causes of revolution. I also like his worker control of the workplace. I too hate the consolidation of wealth but believe that you don’t stop that consolidation by mandate as much as you do by extending democracy to the workplace of large industries. After all, we have to realize that there are some needed products that require accumulation of wealth to produce just as there are some services of gov’t that require more power or ability than others.
BTW, I don’t believe that the state necessarily intrudes on liberty as long as we realize that there are two kinds of liberty: individual liberty and group liberty. The latter allows groups of people to decide how they will live with each other.
In addition, you have employs Marx’s distinction between two kinds of property so I wouldn’t say that all property is theft other than what one produces. Then add Debs’ statement that what is jointly needed should be jointly owned and democratically managed.
In addition, the state owning property or other items is not necessarily socialism. That is because the most basic tenet of socialism, worker control of the means of production, is missing in many states that exercise ownership of industries and their products. Please note Rosa Luxemburg’s criticisms of Lenin and Lenin’s rebuking of the Left in Russia.
LikeLike
Curt & Gas-X on Anarchism. Really?
LikeLike
Erik,
Warum nicht?
LikeLike
DGHART,
I don’t think so. The very next few lines in the post that you quoted from addresses that very concern
Now, suppose that a few weeks go by and that Pope Francis is either to lazy or undisciplined to use his lawn servicing mechanism. The weeds creep in, the grass is knee deep and the neighborhood association is stuffing mailboxes with threats and angry letters. Would it be logical for Daryl to look over the fence of his hundredth house, smile, and say “Welcome to protestant land!” “You are the same as us after all!”. Of course not! No one from Catholic Land would ever consider jumping ship and moving into the next best house just because things got a little untidy. Everyone in Pope Francis house would know that eventually things would be put back in order. They would take pride in the fact that no one from Catholic Land had ever had to abandon ship. They could all relax, and enjoy living in the exact same house that all of their family ancestors had grown up in.
As i have already said, boasts of the Roman Catholic “principled means” for handling disputes does ring cheap when our own yard is messy and over grown…. Its like bragging about our lawn mower even though we havent pulled it out of the garage in quite some time… I can see how that would make people roll their eyes. Still, at the end of the day, here we are, in the same house that Christ built two thousand years ago…. and there you are, in protestant experiment number 33,452.
I am in perfect submission to the Catholic Church. I believe all that she teaches. You are reading ecumenically minded documents are drawing false conclusions. The Church does not teach that schism is no longer a sin. You can read below to further your education.
http://www.coffeehouseinquisition.com/brothers-in-christ/
LikeLike
Victim of the Crises Sean,
Oh lord. You are now the second old person this week to tell me that because I wasn’t alive at V2 that is somehow reason to doubt my assessment. Old man logic at its worse. I was alive during the “war on terror” therefore, according to old man logic, subsequent generations of historians can never know about the event better than I do….. Because they weren’t there… and i was…. so HA!
No one cares about your theology Sean becausethe road that you went down leads people to…. well, where you are today. Apostacy. No thanks!
LikeLike
Erik- philosophical anarchism is far more interesting than the pedantic sophistry of Romanists. Been there, done that, laughedmao. In sum, someone experiencing epistemological angst finds relief following a league of pedophiles who wear robes and Prada shoes. Nuff said.
LikeLike
Gas-X,
No, they’re equally boring.
LikeLike
Ken,
What you are basically saying is that since your church is the oldest it must be the true one.
Tell that to the Jews.
LikeLike
Ken,
I do appreciate that you acknowledge that the church has problems — big ones, even. Bryan acknowledges this not so much. He just calls people who point out problems “Rigorists” or questions their paradigm.
If you had been around at the time of the Reformation, what would you have done?
How long are you willing to wait today for the church to clean house and solve its problems?
LikeLike
Ken,
Sean was less a victim of the crisis than he was a beneficiary of reading the Bible.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
If you had been around at the time of the Reformation, what would you have done?
How long are you willing to wait today for the church to clean house and solve its problems?
What do you do once it becomes clear that the Vatican ISN’T going to clean the house?
LikeLike
I’d qualify anarchist the way Zinn would, I am an anarchist as long as I get to define it.
And like what does this have to do with eggs from China?
Oh, it should read something like: I’m a Romanist as long as I get to define it.
Got it.
The One True Church of a Thousand Qualifications in a Day of Individual Diversity and an Infallible Jesuitical pope. What’s not to like/take cover behind?
LikeLike
“I am in perfect submission to the Catholic Church. I believe all that she teaches.” – – Willful, lonely delusion, thy name is Ken.
LikeLike
I am in perfect submission to the Catholic Church. I believe all that she teaches.
Quote from guess who? Nancy Pelosi? Bryan Cross? All of the above?
But when you have a church which officially teaches the doctrine of implicit faith, everybody’s in. Because then Justification by Implicit Faith is that Sacred Cow from which the priest milks out the sacramental grace to sprinkle on the flock of the (implicit) faithful and confirm them in their damnable ignorance.
Which is an improvement over protestantism.
So now you know.
Where do I sign up?
I like this kind of nominal faith.
LikeLike
While I do disagree with Ken, I think that as Protestants we can at least show some appreciation for his approach,
Ken doesn’t think this necessarily means that he has to give up his Catholicism, and that’s fine. The level of cognitive dissonance one is willing to put up with in a given paradigm is subjective, so Kenneth finds the sorts of arguments at CtC and elsewhere as a a way to make sense of the dissonance. The fact that he acknowledges problem areas is a step in the right direction (whether it means ultimately abandoning the paradigm or not), and for that I say thank you, Ken.
LikeLike
Bob,
Considering that there are a number of different forms of each of the following:
1. Capitalism
2. Socialism
3. Communism
4. Anarchism
It doesn’t really matter if it has anything to do with eggs from China.
LikeLike
Of course not and I wouldn’t suggest otherwise. The point is that these are the folks doing the teaching. More teaching by these guys won’t result in what you are looking for.
I linked to the data in my previous comment (last one on page 3). If you are interested in engaging the data, follow it and try to understand it. If the data is irrelevant to your stance, then feel free to ignore it of course.
I think you are confusing mainline with mainstream. Of the 15 largest, I’m aware of three that have approved SSM (ELCA #5, PCUSA #8, and Episcopal church #12).
You really don’t see a difference between the relationship between the PCA and SBC on the one hand and the RCC and EOC on the other? Really? Let me help you out, I can go to an SBC and be invited to communion. You can’t go to the EOC and take communion. But that is really beside my point. Your claim is that our “schisms” is what makes protestant churches purer than the RCC. That is statistically false. If you put all of the protestants in one bin and all the RCs in another, the RCs are to the left of the prots (as a whole) on matters of divorce and ssm. If you compare RCs to the general population, they are to the left of all non-RCs.
Not to the actual lived experience of the congregants as the data shows.
I provided a link to my source (last comment on page 3). The argument is not that the majority of Catholics in Africa support ssm. The argument is that the larger the share of the population that is catholic, the more open that population is to ssm. While this doesn’t prove that a larger catholic presence causes a country to decline morally, but if your paradigm is so great and true one might expect that an increasing catholic presence would turn the tide on these issues. It doesn’t. I’m not saying it should drive you to despair, but I would think it would give you pause. If all the people in your house (to borrow from you metaphor) are getting sick, maybe there is something to be said for the healthier folks out in the tree house. Of course your roof caved in a long time ago and the walls have a pretty serious mold problem – maybe you can’t prove this is why everyone in your house is dying of asthma, but I would think it would give you pause (or at least take the edge off of our triumphalism). My treehouse may be small, but we’re dry and healthy and everyone is welcom. It’s a legitimate house even if the decor leaves something to be desired- yours is a shell of one.
Try again. The data is consistent with 98% of catholic women of child bearing age having used artificial birth control (I was off by 3pts). Let’s hear it for the sense of the faithful…oh wait… there aren’t any.
As I’ve noted, I cited the source of my data. You should look at the data before drawing such conclusions.
LikeLike
@KW In case your paradigm doesn’t allow you to click on hyperlinks, here is are links you can cut and paste at your leisure:
Comparison of RCs to non-RCs in the US as well as the relationship between RC population in a country and support for ssm and divorce in that country:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/catholics-are-more-progressive-than-the-vatican-and-almost-everyone-else/
Evidence that 98% of sexually active Catholic women of childbearing age have used birth control (points out the errors in the supposed errors in the column you linked):
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/feb/17/keeping-facts-straight-98-catholic-women/
LikeLike
Erik quotes me as saying: T – Ironically I suspect we’ll see the ordination of men who lean decidedly limp wristed long before we do the ordination of women.”
And then responds with:
Erik – By “we’ll see” you mean not counting the last 20 or so Centuries?
I mean a circumstance where it is commonly known at ordination that this person is possessed of this propensity.
Erik says: “It takes a unique man to not want to marry a woman. Either a unique man or a man who does not like what you do with a married woman.”
As you know, the apostle tells us in the 7th of 1st Corinthians that some folks of both genders are legitimately gifted to celibacy. Barring that, any attempt at one’s own self exalting pursuit of extra godliness without being so gifted, is a recipe for…. well… the Catholic priesthood.
Erik says: “Keep trying to meet with that local priest.”
Oh no sir. He’s a laymen. Who knows historic Catholicism better than 99.9% of of the priests you’re likely to stumble over and probably most of the college of Bishops too I wouldn’t doubt.
Erik says: “You guys sound like you would hit it off.
I have the distinct impression that there is sarcasm in this remark. That’s ok. I do suppose we have a long way to go before we’ll be even.
LikeLike
loser ken, I quoted your infallible magisterium. You’re telling me they are wrong.
Why won’t JPII, Benedict XVI or Francis mow the Richard McBrien? How can you relax and say the lawn will be mowed when it isn’t? Think Georgetown, BC, Catholic U., and Notre Dame.
Don’t stop, denyin’.
LikeLike
loser ken, I’d be careful taking on sean. But it’s not like we didn’t know you’re naive.
LikeLike
Brandon, let’s get this straight. Rome used to think it was sin to read banned books. They don’t anymore. Rome used to think only those in the church were saved. They don’t anymore.
Do you have any confidence that Rome is not increasingly approaching the universalism of liberal Christianity where sins and eternal punishment matter little compared to human flourishing?
LikeLike
Does Rome still insist on fasting after midnight for all participants in the mass?
That used to be one that bound consciences of a few in my life.
LikeLike
Ken, I quote you your papi and you redirect your dissentious keyboard at me? Don’t get upset with me just because I know your mother better than you do. I was there. We were tight. We are, how they say? Familiar. In fact, I still circulate with RC clergy and Baltimore Cat and Vat II RCers. My finger is on the pulse. I can almost tell you what Francis is going to do before he does it, almost. I inherited my faith and then left, with the blessing of any number of RC clergy and was even asked to come teach at OST. I know your people better than you. It’s not bragging or ‘old man logic’, it just is. So, if it helps, you can yell at me and spittle in my direction. I understand how frustrating it must be for you.
In the peace of christ
Sean
LikeLike
Curt, when you can tell me what yours had to do with the OP, I’ll tell you what mine had to do with the free market price of eggs in China.
Until then, other than the Roman church being socialistic, it does beat all.
But your off topic comment still applies to the romanists we are seeing over here.
But then maybe some people idolize a particular economic system just like some idolize a visible church.
OK, but don’t complain when some people comment on the similarities.
FTR and just so ya know, Marxism is not an utopian Christian millenial heresy that denies original sin and private property property/the 8th commandment.
Rather it is a debunked heresy.
cheers
LikeLike
@ sdb: I read the rebuttal to the rebuttal and am not convinced that 98% is either correct or meaningful.
Correct? Guttmacher has an agenda. They also have a decent reputation, but they are not an unbiased source. But real issue is …
Meaningful? The question was to sexually active women about whether they had *ever*, in their lives, used anything other than NFP. That question sweeps up all of those who, that one time … And then they felt bad about it …
So while I would be unsurprised at an 82% support rate for birth control among Catholics, the 98% number doesn’t seem to accurately reflect how many reject the church’s teaching.
@Ken: 82%, man. Bet you an eBeer that some of those are priests.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart says: “Rome used to think only those in the church were saved. They don’t anymore.”
You forgot the closely related solemn ANATHEMA which used to mean THIS (please note the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur at the bottom of the page. Not ex-cathedra, but got some magesterial muscle behind it)
—————————————————————————–
Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N– himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.” Whereupon all the assistants respond: “Fiat, fiat, fiat.” The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church. The promulgation of the anathema with such solemnity is well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha.
——————————————————————————————
(Emphasis of course mine)
Micheal Voris and his guy Simon are THE only Catholics I’ve ever met who think I have this coming. 😀 That’s why I love the guy. I tell Catholics all the time that was a born and now apostate papist, baptized, communion and confirmation. I also qualify for EVERY single anathema of the whole body of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Nobody will affirm it though 😦 I feel so left out. I am assured that I can still go to hell if I try hard enough, but nobody can tell me how.
Dr. Hart says to Brandon: “Do you have any confidence that Rome is not increasingly approaching the universalism of liberal Christianity where sins and eternal punishment matter little compared to human flourishing?”
JPII had one and a half feet in this door a couple decades ago and if they ever let Francis actually loose without adult Catholic supervision he’ll have the Vulcans, Romulans, and Borg all saved too.
LikeLike
JPII is not a liberal according to liberal Protestant standards.
He is for the trads and sede vacantists in the Church.
Furthermore, on morals, JPII maintained the Church’s teaching.
The closest one can get to read Protestant liberalism into Catholicism is Kung’s proposal to liberalise the doctrine of infallibility.
LikeLike
The difference between Vat 1 & 2 is the difference in emphasis.
In fact, Vat is rooted in Vat 1. Vat 1 is about affirming the pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Church as the fulness of divine grace. Once the doctrinal position or FRAMEWORK is made clear, so to speak, the Church can then proceed with the pastoral application. That’s what Vat 2 was about. That Vat 2 has caused division amongst the trads and liberal-minded only means that both groups have different visions of what the Church should look like, i.e. the external appearance. Incidentally aggiornamento can be translated as meaning just that, namely a “facelift.”
LikeLike
In fact, Francis seems to grasp the distinction between law and gospel better than the descendants of the Reformation. Sometimes more of the law doesn’t help at all. It either maintains things as they are or things will get worse.
The distinction between law and gospel is not marked by continuity but discontinuity. At least that was how Luther understood it. Thus, there will always be a tension between the law and the gospel. This requires a two-dimensional way of thinking (not one) – exactly like the 2k position.
The law is not the gospel and the gospel is not the law. In fact, both are opposed to each other – both are bound to each other as its polar opposite. Both imply each other but as opposites.This means that there is no logical bridge between the two but both has its own operational logic.
The preaching of the law kills; the preaching of the gospel makes alive. The law curbs and restrains for a time but does not transform; the gospel re-creates anew. The law has its limitations; the gospel is boundless.
The law cannot cure; the gospel heals.
LikeLike
Are we to conclude that there has not been a single “anathema” worthy Catholic in my lifetime? Or any of yours? From the looks of American Catholicism, I doubt if 5% could actually withstand pre Vat. II scrutiny and yet see if you can ANY Romanist robe alive today who can name you the last actual “anathema” without looking it up in some dusty pre-digital archive somewhere.
A toothless, harmless giant, yawned at by her own pew dwellers. I’m not trying to be unkind. Truly I’m not, but this IS the way it is.
LikeLike
Bob,
Does it matter whether it has anything to do with the OP (and OP stands for ?). You interrupted a conversation I was having with someone else.
BTW, which form of Marxism are you talking about. It has been called a Christian heresy because though it denies God, it brings up pertinent issues of injustice which the Church has been sinfully ignoring. In addition, whether the direction that Lenin took the Soviet Union in was really Marxist or Socialist is really for debate. Regardless of that answer, what is not up for debate was that Lenin took a right hand turn and brought the Soviet Union with him.
In addition, one can be Christian and agree with part of what Marx said. I happen to agree with his analysis of Capitalism, I don’t agree with his denial of God, moral relativity, or proletariat dictatorship. Should note that the last item is actually a form of democracy but where only workers and soldiers could be elected to workers councils (a.k.a., soviets). Those in the councils would also keep their day jobs. Lenin dismantled the soviets in favor of elite-centered government and thus his form of gov’t was called a bourgeoisie dictatorship.
BTW, what brought down the economy of the Soviet Union was the arms race and the war in Afghanistan. Otherwise, its economy could have very well continued.
But how about neoliberal capitalism? Note that its first appearance came on the heels of a coup where a democratically elected gov’t was overthrown and replaced with dictatorship that protected this new form of Capitalism (Chile in 1973). It was tried again under military rule in Argentina in the 70’s. Yeltsin dismantled Russia’s Parliament in order to preserve Neoliberal Capitalism and from Yeltsin came Putin. It has been introduced here gradually by the Reagan Administration and it has contributed to destroying the middle class here. BTW, it is every bit materialistic as Marxism. And considering it has led us into wars, destruction of the environment, and sweatshop and trafficked labor, I am not sure if I would call the Capitalism du jour a success either.
LikeLike
D.G.,
If you want to talk about universalism in the Roman Church’s doctrine, then you will want to look up what the Roman Church says about anonymous Christians. The teaching has been around for at least decades.
LikeLike
Curt says: “anonymous Christians.”
This is called “inclusivism”.
I call it heresy. The scriptures just destroy this idea. It IS what made protestants “separated brethren” or whatever the exact term they came up with at Vat II was.
LikeLike
That’s not the same as universalism though btw.
LikeLike
Does it matter whether it has anything to do with the Original Post
(and OP stands for ?). You interrupted a conversation I was having with someone else.I did nothing of the sort, Curt. Your conversation is out to lunch on this thread. I still can’t find where it started or came from, but since it’s here, I riffed on a comment. You took offense.
But if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, please or at least have the good grace to take comments by others for what they are, accelerants to the pursuit of
non Marxist/socialistthe invincible and ineffable truth.Ever heard of von Boehm Bahwerk?
More than that, Marxism cannot be anything but an epic failure because Marxism is economic materialism.
Because man does not live by bread alone.
End of Marxist fairytale.
Just like Romanism is an epic failure.
Justification by Implicit Faith Alone in The One True Visible Church Alone is to put the cart in front of a one trick pony.
LikeLike
The kulaks and Trotskyite wreckers are everywhere these days. Those dogs must be shot down in cold blood and left to rot in the streets where they lie while the proletariat marches upward and onward.
……
non Marxist/socialistthe invincible and ineffable truth.Ever heard of von Boehm Bahwerk?
More than that, Marxism cannot be anything but an epic failure because Marxism is economic materialism.
Because man does not live by bread alone.
End of Marxist fairytale.
Just like Romanism is an epic failure.
Justification by Implicit Faith Alone in The One True Visible Church Alone is to put the cart in front of a one trick pony.
LikeLike
Sean, and the most beautiful home in the neighborhood still has its grass uncut. At about 2 months in, a mower (the great mechanism) won’t work. Then what will the home owner do?
LikeLike
Jason, okay, whatever you say. But this is what JPII taught:
LikeLike
Jason, if the law does not transform, why do you find so many RC historians describing the thick culture that existed in Roman Catholic parishes and neighborhoods before Vat 2? Seems to me as a historian that when Rome was disciplined, cultures were pretty well transformed.
Oh, but then the bishops didn’t like ghetto culture and went all “let’s embrace modernity.” Smart move.
LikeLike
JPII was a Protestant liberal on the matter of human sexuality, though he didn’t do all that much about the Protestant liberal RC theologians in his church who were. To be fair, he did try—a little. How many did he excommunicate, though? And how many of the bishops who are now going all squishy were appointed by him?
JPII was most definitely a Protestant liberal on the matter of universalism. Its the only way to explain how he—following in V2’s change in dogma—could write a catechism in which the door to heaven is open to Trinty-hating, deity-of-Christ denying Muslims. Ironically, if you read RC documents, it seems at times that its a greater sin to be Protestant and affirm classical Christology than it is to be a Muslim and openly denounce it.
It all makes sense if the main concern of the church is to exalt itself, and not Christ.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Your logic is the sort of logic that Jason started out with.
“The level of cognitive dissonance one is willing to put up with in a given paradigm is subjective, so Kenneth finds the sorts of arguments at CtC and elsewhere as a a way to make sense of the dissonance.”
I would generally look to people who have been Catholic more than two weeks to resolve my dissonance.
LikeLike
Totally blowing by anything Curt and Gas-X writes on this thread makes reading so much quicker.
Applies to Curt on every thread.
LikeLike
T – Erik says: “Keep trying to meet with that local priest.”
Oh no sir. He’s a laymen. Who knows historic Catholicism better than 99.9% of of the priests you’re likely to stumble over and probably most of the college of Bishops too I wouldn’t doubt.
Erik – Never mind, then. Laymen aren’t worth a damn under that paradigm.
LikeLike
Careful Ken,
People have been known to go missing two weeks after taking on Sean. He maintains “connections” with those in the RCC, if you know what I mean.
LikeLike
Erik,
I do think that its good for Catholics to acknowledge the problems in our world from time to time, even if the peanut gallery wants to take advantage of the opportunity to pile up rhetorical points and take cheap shots.
Personally, I don’t find the reformers biblical or historical arguments compelling (at all), and so would not have been affected by the reformation.
How long am I willing to wait today? So far as I am concerned there is no time limit. You could look through Church history and see all kinds of confusion that people didn’t always get to live to see resolved (thinking especially of the Arian controversy). I am fine with that possibility. Plus, i really don’t feel like the current situation is very confusing as much as it is frustrating. Even you guys, if pressed in an honest moment, could probably give an easy summary of the RC positions on justification, the sacraments, authority, etc. I hear people like Horton, Sproul, and James White give fantastically accurate summaries of RC positions all the time. So, its not like Church teaching is shrouded in mystery.
LikeLike
Brandon Addison,
I always think that conversations are more interesting if both sides are willing to be vulnerable and honest. Thanks for the charitable comment ( you don’t fit in around here 🙂 )
LikeLike
Sdb,
Yes, that is a problem. But there are a multitude of other (not so mainstream) Universities that are still doing a great job.
3 of 15 have already gone gay, and 100% condone divorce. Out of all those remaining that have not officially gone gay, the people in the pews would probably like them too…. to varying degrees of course.
I do not judge “purity of doctrine” on a PEW POLL of uneducated lay people. Doctrine is judged on confessions, creeds, and authoritative church teachings. As it stands currently, precisely 0% of all protestant religious communities are “pure” because 100% of them are heretical. Beyond that, each of us has to deal with dissent from time to time from within. We solve such controversies with infallible ecumenical councils and excathedra papal teachings. Once the boom is lowered, we have certainty of doctrine and know where everything stands. In your world, once dissent reaches its highest forms, you can do nothing but schism. It is your only recourse. The track record of the protestant experiment speaks for itself. Sure, now that Daryl has the OPC he can sit back with a smile and say everything is grand….. but for how long? How long will the OPC last before we get another 10 denominations? You have no mechanism to handle disputes in a fashion that provides certainty for the next generation. We do, and thats awesome.
Doctrinal purity is not determined by counting heads in the pews. Besides, as I have already said, 100% of your side is unorthodox, even those that hold to your heretical standards of faith. If the Catholic Church can only achieve educating 50% of its members, thats more than the entire protestant world combined. If only 10%, well, that would still be the only orthodox population on the planet.
This is exactly why your argument is so silly. nearly 100% of African Catholics defy SSM… and yet, according to your polls, the higher the Catholic population in Africa the more people that will be for SSM. This still adding up to you? Now you see why correlation does not imply causation. Again, whats the value of a poll? Creeds, confessions, and authoritative church teaching is so much more meaningful.
My house is a hospital for sinners not a museum for saints. The sick and poor are exactly who we want coming in. For example, the idea that 99 percent of all catholic women have used some form of contraception in the past…. even if true, would not show that they are actually FOR contraception, but only that they are sinners (or at least have been at some point in their lives). Your house is not dry and healthy. Your house is anathema. No one will ever get to heaven because they were a protestant. Although they might get to heaven despite that unfortunate fact, if they can escape through ignorance. You heretics may not be fighting amongst yourselves…. but thats only because you start up your own gig every time there is a dispute. The sin of schism, every protestants best friend.
This poll isn’t an indication of all the women who are actively having sex right now on contraception…. but only of women who have ever used even one time in their lives some form of contraception. Huge difference.I am sure that 99% of all men that are catholic have masturbated at some point in their lives. What does that prove? That we all disagree with the Church? Or that we are all sinners? You tell me.
LikeLike
Cagle,
I cant afford to lose another ebeer 😉
LikeLike
DGHART,
I can relax and trust in the promises of Christ to Peter that have borne fruit over 2000 years of history. The gates of Hell have never prevailed and they never will, Resting easy over here…. you better have your movin boxes ready
LikeLike
Victim of the Crises Sean,
You know the “Spirit of vatican 2” better than I do, but sadly you have never received a Catholic education.
LikeLike
Ross Douthat, Rigorist…
Is Bryan following all this?
The Pope and the Precipice
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-pope-and-the-precipice.html?_r=0
OCT. 25, 2014
TO grasp why events this month in Rome — publicly feuding cardinals, documents floated and then disavowed — were so remarkable in the context of modern Catholic history, it helps to understand certain practical aspects of the doctrine of papal infallibility.
On paper, that doctrine seems to grant extraordinary power to the pope — since he cannot err, the First Vatican Council declared in 1870, when he “defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”
In practice, though, it places profound effective limits on his power.
Those limits are set, in part, by normal human modesty: “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly, but I shall never do that,” John XXIII is reported to have said. But they’re also set by the binding power of existing teaching, which a pope cannot reverse or contradict without proving his own office, well, fallible — effectively dynamiting the very claim to authority on which his decisions rest.
Not surprisingly, then, popes are usually quite careful. On the two modern occasions when a pontiff defined a doctrine of the faith, it was on a subject — the holiness of the Virgin Mary — that few devout Catholics consider controversial. In the last era of major church reform, the Second Vatican Council, the popes were not the intellectual protagonists, and the council’s debates — while vigorous — were steered toward a (pope-approved) consensus: The documents that seemed most like developments in doctrine, on religious liberty and Judaism, passed with less than a hundred dissenting votes out of more than 2,300 cast.
But something very different is happening under Pope Francis. In his public words and gestures, through the men he’s elevated and the debates he’s encouraged, this pope has repeatedly signaled a desire to rethink issues where Catholic teaching is in clear tension with Western social life — sex and marriage, divorce and homosexuality.
And in the synod on the family, which concluded a week ago in Rome, the prelates in charge of the proceedings — men handpicked by the pontiff — formally proposed such a rethinking, issuing a document that suggested both a general shift in the church’s attitude toward nonmarital relationships and a specific change, admitting the divorced-and-remarried to communion, that conflicts sharply with the church’s historic teaching on marriage’s indissolubility.
At which point there was a kind of chaos. Reports from inside the synod have a medieval feel — churchmen berating each other, accusations of manipulation flying, rebellions bubbling up. Outside Catholicism’s doors, the fault lines were laid bare: geographical (Germans versus Africans; Poles versus Italians), generational (a 1970s generation that seeks cultural accommodation and a younger, John Paul II-era that seeks to be countercultural) and theological above all.
In the end, the document’s controversial passages were substantially walked back. But even then, instead of a Vatican II-style consensus, the synod divided, with large numbers voting against even watered-down language around divorce and homosexuality. Some of those votes may have been cast by disappointed progressives. But many others were votes cast, in effect, against the pope.
In the week since, many Catholics have downplayed the starkness of what happened or minimized the papal role. Conservatives have implied that the synod organizers somehow went rogue, that Pope Francis’s own views were not really on the table, that orthodox believers should not be worried. More liberal Catholics have argued that there was no real chaos — this was just the kind of freewheeling, Jesuit-style debate Francis was hoping for — and that the pope certainly suffered no meaningful defeat.
Neither argument is persuasive. Yes, Francis has taken no formal position on the issues currently in play. But all his moves point in a pro-change direction — and it simply defies belief that men appointed by the pope would have proposed departures on controversial issues without a sense that Francis would approve.
If this is so, the synod has to be interpreted as a rebuke of the implied papal position. The pope wishes to take these steps, the synod managers suggested. Given what the church has always taught, many of the synod’s participants replied, he and we cannot.
Over all, that conservative reply has the better of the argument. Not necessarily on every issue: The church’s attitude toward gay Catholics, for instance, has often been far more punitive and hostile than the pastoral approach to heterosexuals living in what the church considers sinful situations, and there are clearly ways that the church can be more understanding of the cross carried by gay Christians.
But going beyond such a welcome to a kind of celebration of the virtues of nonmarital relationships generally, as the synod document seemed to do, might open a divide between formal teaching and real-world practice that’s too wide to be sustained. And on communion for the remarried, the stakes are not debatable at all. The Catholic Church was willing to lose the kingdom of England, and by extension the entire English-speaking world, over the principle that when a first marriage is valid a second is adulterous, a position rooted in the specific words of Jesus of Nazareth. To change on that issue, no matter how it was couched, would not be development; it would be contradiction and reversal.
SUCH a reversal would put the church on the brink of a precipice. Of course it would be welcomed by some progressive Catholics and hailed by the secular press. But it would leave many of the church’s bishops and theologians in an untenable position, and it would sow confusion among the church’s orthodox adherents — encouraging doubt and defections, apocalypticism and paranoia (remember there is another pope still living!) and eventually even a real schism.
Those adherents are, yes, a minority — sometimes a small minority — among self-identified Catholics in the West. But they are the people who have done the most to keep the church vital in an age of institutional decline: who have given their energy and time and money in an era when the church is stained by scandal, who have struggled to raise families and live up to demanding teachings, who have joined the priesthood and religious life in an age when those vocations are not honored as they once were. They have kept the faith amid moral betrayals by their leaders; they do not deserve a theological betrayal.
Which is why this pope has incentives to step back from the brink — as his closing remarks to the synod, which aimed for a middle way between the church’s factions, were perhaps designed to do.
Francis is charismatic, popular, widely beloved. He has, until this point, faced strong criticism only from the church’s traditionalist fringe, and managed to unite most Catholics in admiration for his ministry. There are ways that he can shape the church without calling doctrine into question, and avenues he can explore (annulment reform, in particular) that would bring more people back to the sacraments without a crisis. He can be, as he clearly wishes to be, a progressive pope, a pope of social justice — and he does not have to break the church to do it.
But if he seems to be choosing the more dangerous path — if he moves to reassign potential critics in the hierarchy, if he seems to be stacking the next synod’s ranks with supporters of a sweeping change — then conservative Catholics will need a cleareyed understanding of the situation.
They can certainly persist in the belief that God protects the church from self-contradiction. But they might want to consider the possibility that they have a role to play, and that this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
You know the “Spirit of vatican 2″ better than I do, but sadly you have never received a Catholic education.
Sean’s point is that the “Spirit of Vatican 2” IS what it means to be RC today. You just haven’t gotten the memo. At least when Bryan et al kiss Francis’ ring it makes some sense in line with the idea that Rome is supposed to be what you say it is. When you presume to pick and choose from the Magisterium and hate on a lawful ecumenical council, not so much.
LikeLike
Kenneth, “you heretical heretics”? Is that any way to speak to your separated brethren?
LikeLike
Ken, what Robert said. In the spirit of Ricky Bobby, “THAT (Vat II) Just happened”. “Pastorally apply, the sanctity of religious conscience” (shake and bake).
LikeLike
Either the Pope is a good Catholic or Ken is. Since the Pope is nicer to Protestants we vote for him.
LikeLike
Ken, just to be clear, you’re saying that Francis and I got the same catholic education? Yep, that’d be the case. And he’s your papi. Wow, so what you’re feeling, is what it must feel like to be a foster child in a home where they’re in it for the money. Or when you realize your siblings are all step siblings? Papa was a rolling stone………… or being gender egalitarian, momma was a ‘working girl’
LikeLike
Robert,
Thats what it will mean as soon as you can quote some authoritative teaching that supports the liberal point of view. As it stand, orthodoxy is not determined by polls and popular opinion. (it may be in your world, but not mine). Come back and let me know when your argument has teeth.
Sean,
Its so sad reading your comments. I guess every crises has its victims. Collateral damage. Its too bad you were never brought up in the faith. I pray you can escape from your crimes against the faith through ignorance. Your comments read like there might be a chance….
LikeLike
A great comment from “the callers”
“I, for one, upon reading the history of the Church, was very aware that the unity and holiness of the Catholic Church was not predicate on a perfect history. In fact, quite the opposite. Instead, what emerges is an improbable history. We see dissension like it that has caused in a Protestant context schism too numerous to mention. We have seen entire denominations permanently led into error. For the Catholic Church, instead, the Holy Spirit has preserved her. For some, that might be less important, they might long for a pure group for which they can share their purity with and remain pure. I argue that Christ did not leave us with such a group. He left us with a very big Church, full of people as ugly as we are. The people in the Church are just as apt to err as we are. In fact, the Catholic argument against Protestantism isn’t that only Protestants err, but rather, that people unaided by the power of the Holy Spirit err – and err often. As a very large Church, we are full of sinners who err. And, yes, priests and bishops are people too.
What is miraculous is such a large Church has been preserved in her integrity, despite the murderers, fornicators, and the like running about us. Not even to mention the great saints she has produced. So, yes, I was aware of the “statistics,” and sadly I have often been a part of a statistic for which I am deeply sorry: sinner. If the Catholic Church were not having this debate, if at least some men shaped by our times were not swayed by the convincing appeals to emotion in the debate, I would be concerned that the Church were made up of robots, angels disguised as men, or had devolved into a sect. This is not a matter of being on the right side of history, it is a matter of being on the side of the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Ken, in the immortal words of the Maddona, the like a virgin, one….. Hmmm, not enough distinction, the one of ‘papa don’t preach’ fame, not to be confused with the similarly sentimental one who was mystified that her son had left them and was in the temple teaching; ‘Don’t cry for me, Argentina’.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Thats what it will mean as soon as you can quote some authoritative teaching that supports the liberal point of view. As it stand, orthodoxy is not determined by polls and popular opinion. (it may be in your world, but not mine). Come back and let me know when your argument has teeth.
You aren’t paying attention. Unless and until Rome cleans house of all its liberals, liberalism is as orthodox as your radical traditional brand of RCism. You can take comfort that you have some documents from some councils all you want, but all you are doing is that which you disparage us for doing—applying private interpretation to an infallible source. Your source is just bigger and ill-defined.
Don’t tell us how much we “need” an infallible interpreter when the infallible interpreter can’t decide whether to value homosexual orientation or not on the first pass.
LikeLike
Btw, Kenneth, if you think JPII and Ratzinger didn’t drink deeply from the well of the German higher critics, you really are lost in the woods of your own imagination. Notice where Ratizinger draws the line with Kung, Papal authority. Rather convenient.
LikeLike
T- That’s ok. I do suppose we have a long way to go before we’ll be even.
Erik – I appreciate your switch from Red Bull laced with Jolt Cola to Sanka.
LikeLike
Jason,
Francis getting the law/gospel distinction right would be more convincing if he got the gospel right.
Plus, Bryan & The Callers seem to be a lot more focused on the Pope than on Jesus.
LikeLike
Curt – You interrupted a conversation I was having with someone else.
Erik – A conversation completely, utterly, unrelated to the thread. As always. you mistake this site for karlmarx.com.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Any progress on the Church recognizing your marriage?
If not, do they not view you as one of the fornicators you mention above?
LikeLike
Muddy bringing (!) clarity, Sean dropping the hammer.
LikeLike
Kenneth better go on protein powder and a good multivitamin if he hopes to keep running his mouth at this kind of pace.
LikeLike
Even Greg is speechless, although he is getting the anathemas he’s been seeking.
LikeLike
I would just like to point out that I am not responsible for the length of this thread.
LikeLike
loser ken, you keep missing the obvious. Your church was very disciplined before Vat 2. It is possible to use the mower. Popes did, even after they lost their lands. Have you ever wondered why the popes are not as forceful as the Piuses?
Probably better that you don’t. It would keep you up.
LikeLike
loser ken, “as soon as you can quote”? Now you’re going all logocentric on us? The very conceit of Protestantism to think that something has to be written to change or provide proof. Tradition was never so literal.
But think of it. The bishops who have all the authority of the apostles and half the charism of the pope — over half of them voted for the interim report to welcome gays and divorcees to the church.
You better find the sleeping pills.
LikeLike
loser ken, and this is exactly how Yankees’ fans think when it comes to A-Rod. All those titles, so many sinners. Just pile it on.
LikeLike
Jeff, this isn’t long. You and David broke the mold.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
What is your opinion on the selling of indulgences and on simony (the selling of church offices)?
These were an issue at the time of the Reformation.
Should someone who donates a lot of the money to the church (say for a building project) receive more favorable consideration in a request for an annulment than someone of modest means?
Do you just trust the Pope and Bishops on these sorts of things? After all, they’re the ones who have to balance the books.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
If the Roman Catholic Church turns out to not be who she says she is, what sins would she be guilty of?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Way to go.
If Bryan Cross comes back, you go as long as you need to.
You’ve been known to take him to the woodshed (although he’ll never admit it).
Feel free to go long on Kenneth, too. He needs his youthful ears boxed.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
When you call Sean a “victim of the crises”, exactly how many crises in the Roman Catholic Church are we talking about?
LikeLike
CW, Muddy clarity happens about as often as Catholic discipline, so I rush to the combox before it gets all blurry again. Maybe I oughta have implicit faith in my insights. Yeah, that’s a paradigm which makes 20 cents and darn it everything’s blurry again.
LikeLike
DGH & Erik,
Don’t get me wrong–I don’t think that Kenneth is effectively arguing for his position. But I do think that Ken’s approach to the topic allows for there to be an actual conversation.
Would you rather have someone telling you why none of the myriad of problem areas are actually problem areas or would you rather deal with someone who tells you about how everything you’ve said is compatible with their paradigm? We can at least explain to Ken why he’s off his rocker. With the other approach, however, you can’t even begin to have a conversation because that paradigm swallows any cognitive dissonance as being a figment of an outside paradigm’s imagination.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted October 26, 2014 at 10:02 pm | Permalink
loser ken, and this is exactly how Yankees’ fans think when it comes to A-Rod. All those titles, so many sinners. Just pile it on.
“Loser” Ken be kicking your butt, D.
LikeLike
Brandon Addison
Posted October 26, 2014 at 11:43 pm | Permalink
DGH & Erik,
Don’t get me wrong–I don’t think that Kenneth is effectively arguing for his position. But I do think that Ken’s approach to the topic allows for there to be an actual conversation.
You must be new around here.
Pleased to meetcha. This game could use somebody to call fouls.
LikeLike
Robert,
Oh lord. So, just to set the record straight, during the height of the Arian controversy, was arianism “orthodox” just because the polls would have said so? I mean, Nicea was cool and all, but at the end of the day Athanasius was just “quoting from some documents” right? Your entire argument is so historically naive. popular opinion does not determine othodoxy. That is how things go down in your world, but not in ours. It is in these very controversial moments that I am so thankful for an infallible magesterium. Oh, and in case you didnt read the papers… the good guys won at the synod. But I guess that doesn’t matter, because some poll said this, and some professor said that, and the pope gave an interview that said such and such, and some bishops agreed…. Your argument is so weak its almost painful to refute. The Roman Catholic apologetic has never been that we are a Church of automatrons that never experience controversy, crises, or dissent. If you think that dissent is relevant to our conversations, it is you who havent been paying attention. Try arguing against our actual paradigm and not what your imagination demands of ecclesiastical infallibility.
LikeLike
Erik,
haha whatever dude. 6’4 270lbs… I need to lean out if anything.
Yes they were, but i think that Luther and the reformers would agree with me that they were relatively minor issues. The solas are where we must do battle. Abuse of power is bad…. embracing heresy is worse.
No, of course not.
Yes, I do trust the bishops.
Guilty of schism from the E.O….. 🙂
LikeLike
DGHART,
Yes, I know that we have used the lawn mower before. Numerous times actually. Thats why we are still one and not 33,000. What I don’t see is how your point is relevant?
Which was not enough for the liberal agenda to go through. Too bad for the bad guys. Too bad for the protestant apologetic. You guys keep crossing your fingers and hoping we slip up some time…. maybe in the next thousand years or so…… Dont hold your breath….
If we are the yankees, you are the Sugarland Skeeters
http://www.sugarlandskeeters.com
LikeLike
Ken: Oh ****. So, just to set the record straight, during the height of the Arian controversy, was arianism “orthodox” just because the polls would have said so? I mean, Nicea was cool and all, but at the end of the day Athanasius was just “quoting from some documents” right? Your entire argument is so historically naive. popular opinion does not determine othodoxy.
Neither does papal opinion.
You have two choices. Either truth is determined — created, defined — by popes and councils.
Or else it is objectively true.
And if objectively true, then it is logically possible that popes and councils might get it wrong. The bad guys might win a round. Or two.
And if the latter is the case, then you have no principled way of knowing whether your current church doctrine is actually true, or whether you just happen to believe it because the credentials hanging on the wall look so pretty.
If the former is a case, well, you’re just a fideist.
LikeLike
“The solas are where we must do battle”
Amen.
“Guilty of schism….”
and again I say, amen 🙂
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Oh lord. So, just to set the record straight, during the height of the Arian controversy, was arianism “orthodox” just because the polls would have said so? I mean, Nicea was cool and all, but at the end of the day Athanasius was just “quoting from some documents” right? Your entire argument is so historically naive. popular opinion does not determine othodoxy. That is how things go down in your world, but not in ours.
No it wasn’t, but neither did anyone think that Nicea had automatically been blessed with guaranteed infallibility. Where is the teaching in the aftermath of Nicea that it was impossible going into it for Nicea to have gotten it wrong. Athanasius stands his ground based primarily on Scripture, especially since other councils and bishops are convening to make Arianism orthodox. What’s naive is this view of history that says Athanasius view of Nicea is the same as your view of Nicea, especially when even your view of ecumenical councils is inconsistent since you reject V2 and its open embrace of Trinity-denying groups as on the way to heaven—which Nicea explicitly rejected.
It is in these very controversial moments that I am so thankful for an infallible magesterium. Oh, and in case you didnt read the papers… the good guys won at the synod. But I guess that doesn’t matter, because some poll said this, and some professor said that, and the pope gave an interview that said such and such, and some bishops agreed…. Your argument is so weak its almost painful to refute.
Well since technically the synod hasn’t even happened yet, there is nothing to win. You aren’t paying attention to church history because the evidence is not what determines your position. What happened at the meeting is EXACTLY what happened at any number of Protestant gatherings that eventually went full-on, let’s-not-hide-it-anymore liberal.
As far as popular opinion, that’s a bit hollow when you have your own bishops surveying their own popular opinion to determine whether or not homosexual orientation is something that should be valued. What in the world has the infallible Magisterium settled if it even has to debate THAT particular issue?
The Roman Catholic apologetic has never been that we are a Church of automatrons that never experience controversy, crises, or dissent. If you think that dissent is relevant to our conversations, it is you who havent been paying attention. Try arguing against our actual paradigm and not what your imagination demands of ecclesiastical infallibility.
Kenneth—when you are jumping up and down singing the praises of a LIVING infallible Magisterium as necessary and that LIVING Magisterium is having LIVING dissent on LIVING issues that are supposed to be settled, then dissent is most certainly relevant to the conversation.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Thats why we are still one and not 33,000.
What, so now are you denying that liberalism has infected your church? Apparently so, since the only way you can make such a claim is to pretend that the liberals aren’t considered fully orthodox by your Magisterium.
LikeLike
“No one will ever get to heaven because they were a protestant.”
I think all the protestants here agree 100% with that statement (at least I hope). There’s a lot of anti-Reformation Day sentiment on this blog.
Kenneth, I’m agreeing with everything you’re saying (except I’m on the other side of your position). I especially appreciate you using the word “anathema” toward us separated brethren (not speaking sarcastically), and pointing out the irrelevancies of the gross sins of the laity (and pastors) to the truth of any confession.
I almost went papist, then read the Angelic Doctor and became Lutheran. Post-Tridentine (and especially post-Vatican I, which really painted her in a corner) Rome is as schismatic as any First Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Universal Brethren in Christ Jesus of Crumpler, WV.* It’s just bigger, and older (but not so old as her members claim).
(But Evanglisch do believe Pr. Berglogio has a legitimate call to St. John Lateran. I don’t think the Reformed think that, though)
*This is a made up church. But Crumpler, WV is for real.
LikeLike
Jeff!
C’mon, you can’t come around now and bring up the subject of objective truth. Really? Did you time-travel from the 16th century or something?
Get on with the times mah-man! According to most of the testimonies at CtC, it appears the real reason why most Reformed people converted to Rome is that they questioned not just the ‘source’ of truth, but the very existence of truth itself…
Maybe they read way too much Barth when they were still ‘Reformed’. Just maybe… they should all just save us the trouble, confess now (to being former ‘Barthians’) or forever hold their peace.
Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Eric quotes me as saying: “That’s ok. I do suppose we have a long way to go before we’ll be even.”
And then responds with
Erik says: “I appreciate your switch from Red Bull laced with Jolt Cola to Sanka.”
Erik I do believe you may have meant that positively. 🙂 I must say though, I’m a green tea man. I say again. You had me wrong this whole time. I’ll take at least some of the responsibility for that.
Erik says: “Even Greg is speechless, although he is getting the anathemas he’s been seeking.”
I haven’t had a chance to read the rest yet, but I’ll take all the RCC anathemas I can get,
Erik says: “Keep trying to meet with that local priest.”
And the quotes me as saying: Oh no sir. He’s a laymen. Who knows historic Catholicism better than 99.9% of of the priests you’re likely to stumble over and probably most of the college of Bishops too I wouldn’t doubt.
Then himself further responds with:
Erik – Never mind, then. Laymen aren’t worth a damn under that paradigm.
I don’t think I know what you mean by this.
LikeLike
Brandon, but loser ken still calls us heretics (even when the guy with the infallible mower doesn’t).
LikeLike
loser ken, and where was the pope during the Arian controversy? If not for Constantine, who knows what happens? But you can’t give Roman Catholicism credit for that.
LikeLike
loser ken, so the bishops you trust are the “bad guys”? Let’s see, some bishops are good and some are bad and loser ken decides. And I thought I was Protestant.
LikeLike
jeff, you just kicked vd, t’s ass.
LikeLike
Brandon,
If you’re asking me if I think Bryan and Kenneth are all wet, yes.
Bryan thinks the paradigm solves every problem and Kenneth thinks the Pope (maybe not this Pope, but some righteous Pope some time in the future) solves every problem.
It’s like asking if I would rather have my arm gnawed off by a wolf or a wolverine.
LikeLike
Tom,
Good to see the public library computer is working for you. Just ignore the porn addicts on your left and right.
LikeLike
Kenneth – popular opinion does not determine othodoxy.
Erik – Even the popular opinion of a majority of Bishops, ratified by the Pope?
The difference between Bryan & Ken is that Bryan will bend his will and interpretations to the Pope and the Bishops (just watch) and Ken will write off a Pope and generation of Bishops, believing that a better generation is just around the corner.
Either way, their faith is in men, not in Scripture and in Jesus.
LikeLike
Ken – Which was not enough for the liberal agenda to go through. Too bad for the bad guys. Too bad for the protestant apologetic. You guys keep crossing your fingers and hoping we slip up some time…. maybe in the next thousand years or so…… Dont hold your breath….
Erik – Address Vatican II and the fact that Protestants and Muslims can now go to heaven. Slip ups?
And that bad liturgical music?
LikeLike
When those in the RCC hold the presupposition that the Pope and RC Church are perfect in every action and always have been, there is no room for conversation
We disagree about this perfection and when we point out stark examples they go LaLaLaLa and off to their happy planet
There is no room for conversation with people like this.
Besides the term “conversation” has been ruined by extreme liberal views that pretend to be Christian
LikeLike
Erik,
I didn’t start that conversation, I was simply responding.
LikeLike
Curt,
Don’t tell me you didn’t wet your pants when given the opening.
Anarchism, indeed.
LikeLike
I think all the protestants here agree 100% with that statement (at least I hope). There’s a lot of anti-Reformation Day sentiment on this blog.
Kenneth, I’m agreeing with everything you’re saying (except I’m on the other side of your position). I especially appreciate you using the word “anathema” toward us separated brethren (not speaking sarcastically), and pointing out the irrelevancies of the gross sins of the laity (and pastors) to the truth of any confession.
Katy, would that more Reformed were more skeptical of Reformation Day than Halloween.
But there is something admirable about relating to Protestants per Trent (anathema), but the problem for Kenneth seems to be that his infallible magisterium has determined we’re brethren without repealing the anathema. I get simultaneously sinful and justified. What I don’t get is simultaneously anthematized and fraternalized. Maybe Kenneth is siding more with Trent than V2, but then that seems awfully Protestant-y, which raises the question of why he can employ private judgment in relation to his church without a problem but when we do it’s schismatic?
It’s true that the sins of her members aren’t relevant to the truth of their confession (though also as with Protestants there is the problem of credibility). But the point has to do with the claim of having Thee Principled Means© (infallible magisterium) to settle disputes of faith and morals. Well, if things are so settled then why so much fracture and on-going dispute in the ranks? They love playing the 30k-Protestant-denoms card, but from over it sure looks like a lot of denial and hand waving. The gross sins and even the fracture wouldn’t be such a problem if it weren’t for the prior audacious claims—either show more settled faith and morals or dial down the prior claims.
LikeLike
Zrim, but if you can have Trent as dogma and Vat 2 as pastoral practice, then maybe you keep homosexuality and divorce as sin as dogma and find a synodical way of regarding gay marriage and second marriages merely part of pastoral practie.
You really can make it up as you go.
LikeLike
If Kenneth doesn’t make sense to you, know that his fellow RC’s have noticed, too. Long debates with other Catholics at Stellman’s blog.
He’s kind of homeless, just like Tom Van Dyke. The only difference is that Kenneth can post from his own computer.
Keep that Marina Del Rey, library card, Tom.
LikeLike
Hopefully Tom and Ken get to hear the Gospel some day and believe.
LikeLike
Eric,
Wow, that youtube Halloween Mass/Mess clip is so revolting. They have outfits on and one guy has a Rickebacker bass! Why is such a great bass being wasted there? Sadly, many Prots are no better. But ya, Rome doesn’t have the gospel.
LikeLike
MPS,
The thing about that clip is the priest absolutely knows he’s a scoundrel. But hey, he’s in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome and apparently that’s all that counts these days.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“You have two choices. Either truth is determined — created, defined — by popes and councils.
Or else it is objectively true.”
This seems to be a false dichotomy or a conflation of ontology and epistemology. Objective truth can be identified/recognized – identification does not necessitate lack of objectivity. The OT had objective truth that was brought out by Christ and the Apostles.
“And if objectively true, then it is logically possible that popes and councils might get it wrong. The bad guys might win a round. Or two.”
Assuming Rome’s claims, it is no more logically possible for them to get it wrong as it was for the Apostles to get it wrong. Neither case implies there is no objective truth.
LikeLike
kent
Posted October 27, 2014 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
Hopefully Tom and Ken get to hear the Gospel some day and believe.
Don’t worry about l’il ol’ me. Or the Pope. Pray for your fellow Presbyterians.
LikeLike
Amazing… I don’t log on for a day or so and get left in the dust. I think the most surprising thing I read is that I won’t be getting into heaven on account of being a protestant…uh oh! Oh wait, I’m not trusting in my association with other believers to get into heaven – I’m trusting in Christ’s work…whew!
LikeLike
Clete – Assuming Rome’s claims, it is no more logically possible for them to get it wrong as it was for the Apostles to get it wrong. Neither case implies there is no objective truth.
Erik – But didn’t Peter get it wrong? Paul corrected him.
Who corrects Francis?
LikeLike
sdb,
The Catholics need to debate amongst themselves exactly where we stand. I’m sure once they figure it out, they’ll get back to us.
LikeLike
Tom,
You swiped your credit card for 15 minutes of online access at the truck stop and that’s all you got?
LikeLike
I know what happens at truck stops.
LikeLike
Erik,
“But didn’t Peter get it wrong? Paul corrected him.”
So why don’t you think Peter might have gotten it wrong in 1/2 Peter? Maybe Paul got it wrong in his epistles as well unless he’s somehow just more special than Peter.
“Who corrects Francis?”
You don’t think popes have been corrected in the past?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Any progress on the Church recognizing your marriage?
If not, do they not view you as one of the fornicators you mention above?
Oooo, that’s really dirty pool, dude.
Darryl, at some point you’re responsible for the doings of your henchmen. I mean this blog is fronting for your religion/denomination/sect. Do you need to win this badly?
[As for “Erik” referring to the truck stop thing, there has been some question about whether Dr. Hart has been blocking me from commenting.]
[But if you don’t see me, it’s likely I’m either dead or blocked and this is my last will and testament. You may inquire about my health at esqtvd at aol dot com. If you see me on Twitter @DykeVanTom but not here, ask Darryl if he murdered me and whether it was with the knife or the candlestick.]
_______________
As to what the discussion is about besides Erik’s badgering and monkey-wrench tossing, yes, “fideism” figures into the Catholic belief in the papacy and magisterium. Thou art Peter, and ‘I will always be with you’ bit, which Thomas More used to argue both Christ and the Holy Spirit remaining with the church for some 1500 years.
It’s fine to disagree about Bible interpretation, but I don’t think you should sneer at other people’s sincere beliefs like you do, Darryl. [Your henchmen merely follow suit. Not pretty. Not feeling the love of Jesus in all this.]
[Not to mention your own Presbyterian Church is in much worse shape than the Catholic Church is or has ever been, theologically or cohesively.]
LikeLike
Dr. Hart: “Zrim, but if you can have Trent as dogma and Vat 2 as pastoral practice, then maybe you keep homosexuality and divorce as sin as dogma and find a synodical way of regarding gay marriage and second marriages merely part of pastoral practice.
You really can make it up as you go.
Just watch. This is exactly what we’re gonna see. Maybe sooner than we think.
LikeLike
@EC Yeah, interesting to compare the Athanasian Creed with the modern RC catechism. What was once “necessary” is now “necessary unless”… If that isn’t a change in doctrine, then I suspect that prohibitions on ssm and divorce today can “evolve” (ssm and divorce forbidden unless…). I wonder if these caveats are applicable retroactively? When your faith is a paradigm any number of post hoc addenda are admissible.
LikeLike
Clete,
Exactly.
No monopoly on correct biblical interpretation — either in a particular man or men or in a particular city.
Exactly.
LikeLike
Tom – Oooo, that’s really dirty pool, dude.
Erik – Not really. Kenneth is the one who told us that the church views him as living with his sister instead of with his wife since she is Catholic, divorced, and remarried.
Whatever allows the Church to sleep at night.
LikeLike
Tom,
Good to see you arrived safely at that internet cafe in Santa Cruz.
LikeLike
Cletus,
You don’t think popes have been corrected in the past?
How many popes have been corrected since infallibility was invented at V1?
Why does a pope need correction if He is infallible? Can’t he just pull the “what I just said was infallible card?
Why can popes think they are being infallible when in fact they are not being infallible? (as in, the history of viewing Protestants as going to hell, The application of Unam Sanctum)?
Oh yeah, the doctrine is infallible, not its application. Whatever. If the infallible interpreter can’t apply the doctrine infallibly, then infallibility is a shell game.
LikeLike
foxy lady, “Assuming Rome’s claims, it is no more logically possible for them to get it wrong as it was for the Apostles to get it wrong. Neither case implies there is no objective truth.”
there you go again putting the magisterium on a par with Scripture. Who ever said that the popes were inspired? When did anyone ever put together a canon of papal scripture?
Oh, wait. Denzinger. Roman Catholics wouldn’t know what’s authoritative without a nineteenth-century German theologian. Talk about Protestant dilemmas.
LikeLike
Darryl said:
there you go again putting the magisterium on a par with Scripture. Who ever said that the popes were inspired?
Ironically, the RC argument would be more coherent logically if they would claim that the popes and Magisterium were inspired in exactly the same way as the Apostles. Maybe one day they will, explicitly.
LikeLike
Curt: I too hate the consolidation of wealth but believe that you don’t stop that consolidation by mandate as much as you do by extending democracy to the workplace of large industries.
Me: How do you account for the fact that pure democracies always descend into group think and the tyranny of the mob? Athens, Jacobians, Fascists, to name a few. This blog is one example of millions of how group think functions. The minions gather and disparage anyone who falls outside of their particular orthodoxy; they cheer lead their fellow minions and call for the silencing the offenders (which to diggy’s credit he has denied). Erik’s diarrhetic posting of youtube links and stream of consciousness miasma act as a pagan mantra to reinforce the orthodoxy. This is almost like a law when it comes to group dynamics. OTOH, you say that some governmental coercion is necessary but you give no operating principle on how that works within a pure democracy?
LikeLike
Mediating between Kenneth and CtC we have Ross Douthat, who is someone that I think is an admirable Catholic. I don’t think that the current controversy over the redefinition of Catholic doctrine *necessarily* undermines Catholic claims, but the reason that Douthat is such a breath of fresh air is that he is actually willing to admit that cognitive dissonance actually exists.
In the week since, many Catholics have downplayed the starkness of what happened or minimized the papal role. Conservatives have implied that the synod organizers somehow went rogue, that Pope Francis’s own views were not really on the table, that orthodox believers should not be worried. More liberal Catholics have argued that there was no real chaos — this was just the kind of freewheeling, Jesuit-style debate Francis was hoping for — and that the pope certainly suffered no meaningful defeat.
Neither argument is persuasive. Yes, Francis has taken no formal position on the issues currently in play. But all his moves point in a pro-change direction — and it simply defies belief that men appointed by the pope would have proposed departures on controversial issues without a sense that Francis would approve.
And Douthat’s closing comments are incisive,
These don’t refute Catholic truth claims, but they do temper the epistemological superiority bandied about by certain Catholic apologists.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“there you go again putting the magisterium on a par with Scripture.”
No there I go again just stating what the magisterium claims – it has divine authority. So did the Apostles. But divine authority does not necessitate inspiration. Nor does it necessitate a lack of objective truth which was the original assertion being replied to.
“Roman Catholics wouldn’t know what’s authoritative without a nineteenth-century German theologian.”
I think RCs knew the faith before Denzinger. How could Denzinger be written otherwise?
Erik,
“Exactly.
No monopoly on correct biblical interpretation — either in a particular man or men or in a particular city.”
Uh, so 1/2 Peter might be wrong? If so, how can you perform “correct biblical interpretation” if Scripture must interpret Scripture? Who corrected Paul on his command for women to cover heads?
Robert,
“How many popes have been corrected since infallibility was invented at V1?”
Erik was asking who corrects Francis. V1 took into account cases where popes had been corrected in how it crafted its decree on infallibility. So popes are not beyond correction.
“Why does a pope need correction if He is infallible? Can’t he just pull the “what I just said was infallible card?”
Sure, if he meant for something to be defined infallibly.
“Why can popes think they are being infallible when in fact they are not being infallible? (as in, the history of viewing Protestants as going to hell, The application of Unam Sanctum)?”
Formal membership in the RCC as a prerequisite for salvation was never an infallible doctrine nor taught by US, which is why you see witness to inclusivist views before and after US.
LikeLike
Brandon, also someone to hear is Russell Shaw.
LikeLike
foxy lady, well isn’t that convenient. But does the Bible claim divine authority for the popes?
And oh by the way, is divine authority dogma or practice? How do you know?
LikeLike
Cletus,
Formal membership in the RCC as a prerequisite for salvation was never an infallible doctrine nor taught by US, which is why you see witness to inclusivist views before and after US.
I guess all of those medieval popes and bishops that did things such as execute Hus and put a price on Luther’s head must have been wrong then. And we’re supposed to trust them?
LikeLike
Robert, again everything done by the RCC is perfect to these folk, CVD and this ilk don’t even allow crimes and evil and contradictions to sink into their skulls.
They can’t do it.
LikeLike
Robert,
The doctrine being infallible but not the application explains why we never saw Kim Jong-Il at the Masters in spite of his mad golf skills.
LikeLike
Brandon – These don’t refute Catholic truth claims, but they do temper the epistemological superiority bandied about by certain Catholic apologists.
…named Bryan.
LikeLike
Clete,
That’s quite a firm foundation you’re on there.
I’m comfortable with interpreting texts that others interpret differently. I’m a grown man.
LikeLike
Papal infalliabity? How about God-al infallibility?
From Ligonier’s new survey:
“God is a perfect being and cannot make a mistake”
Agree strongly 48%
Agree somewhat 15%
Disagree somewhat 13%
Disagree strongly 10%
Not sure 14%
Self-identified Evangelicals who attend church Once a month or more (89%) are
more likely to Strongly Agree than Other Christians (52%) and Non-Christians
(23%). Black Protestants (71%) and Evangelicals (77%) are more likely to Strongly
Agree than Catholics (44%) and Mainlines (45%).
Click to access TheStateOfTheology-FullSurveyKeyFindings.pdf
LikeLike
And in at least one area many Romanist believe with Da Papa:
“There are many ways to get to heaven”
Agree strongly 21%
Agree somewhat 23%
Disagree somewhat 12%
Disagree strongly 30%
Not sure 14%
Self-identified Evangelicals who attend church Once a month or more (80%) are
more likely to Strongly Disagree than Other Christians (24%) and Non-Christians
(19%). Catholics (31%) are more likely to Strongly Agree than Mainlines (22%), Black
Protestants (16%), and Evangelicals (7%).
Click to access TheStateOfTheology-Whitepaper.pdf
LikeLike
No cognative dissonance here. Now if the church officially had contradicting doctrine, then there would be some serious confusion. Be certain that no one leaves Protestant doctrinal disunity and becomes a Catholic if the Church is having the same problem. I wouldn’t have left a Reformed congregation if I wasn’t,epistemically, sure that a visible Church guided by the Holy Spirit did exist. What does everyone think that a lay Catholic is defending if not something that Protestants poke sticks at?
I get my notion of there being such a thing as The Church from reading the scriptures that The Church has said are inspired. If it weren’t for The Church’s declaration that the scriptures are inspired, I wouldn’t know that they are. I don’t mean to say that they aren’t inspired,but that without the Church’s role as pillar and foundation of Truth being guided by the Holy Spirit, the congregation who desire to know all that God has revealed in writing, would only have a fallible assurance.
LikeLike
*sigh*, so many errors, so little time between classes.
Jeff,
You are correct sir, Papal opinion does not determine orthodoxy. Which is a nuance most of you guys are missing. Papal opinion should be respected. Papal opinion should be studied. But it does not determine orthodoxy. For that, we turn to the official teachings of the magesterium, which may or may not include excathedra statements and papal encyclicals.
This is a false delima. You have confused and conflated matters of ontology with epistemology (one of Roberts favorite errors). Objectively, the truth exists apart from any human beings approval. The million dollar questions are;
1. How do we know what the truth is
and
2. How much certainty can we have of this truth?
Your paradigm offers an answer to question 2 that I find utterly unacceptable.
Because this dangles from the horns of a false delima it barely deserves a response…. but because I am such a nice guy ill give you one anyways 🙂
The objective truth of a proposition doe snot entail the fallibility of the magesterium. Truth can exist objectively…. and part of that truth can be that the magesterium of the Catholic Church does not err when teaching to the entire church on faith and morals… the two are not mutually exclusive.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Your paradigm offers an answer to question 2 that I find utterly unacceptable.
By your own standards, then, you have to impute infallibility to yourself to be consistent and find Rome acceptable.
LikeLike
Robert,
Lets look at what the wonderful SAINT Athanasius had to say about Nicea.
But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever. (Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa 2; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
For the statements are not fit for Christians to make or to hear, on the contrary they are in every way alien from the Apostolic teaching. . . . It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. But lest the ‘inventors of evil things’ make entire silence on our part a pretext for shamelessness, it will be well to mention a few points from Holy Scripture, in case they may even thus be put to shame, and cease from these foul devices. (Letter LIX to Epictetus, 3; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
Either then deny the Synod of Nicæa, and as heretics bring in your doctrine from the side; or, if you wish to be children of the fathers, do not hold the contrary of what they wrote. (Letter LIX to Epictetus, 4; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
Lest you think I take him out of context let us turn to Dr. Schaff
The authority of these [ecumenical] councils in the decision of all points of controversy was supreme and final.
Their doctrinal decisions were early invested with infallibility; the promises of the Lord respecting the indestructibleness of his church, his own perpetual presence with the ministry, and the guidance of the Spirit of truth, being applied in the full sense to those councils, as representing the whole church. After the example of the apostolic council, the usual formula for a decree was: Visum est Sprirtui Sancto et nobis. Constantine the Great, in a circular letter to the churches, styles the decrees of the Nicene council a divine command; a phrase, however, in reference to which the abuse of the word divine, in the language of the Byzantine despots, must not be forgotten. Athanasius says, with reference to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ: “What God has spoken by the council of Nice, abides forever.” The council of Chalcedon pronounced the decrees of the Nicene fathers unalterable statutes, since God himself had spoken through them. The council of Ephesus, in the sentence of deposition against Nestorius, uses the formula: “The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, determines through this most holy council.” Pope Leo speaks of an “irretractabilis consensus” of the council of Chalcedon upon the doctrine of the person of Christ. Pope Gregory the Great even placed the first four councils, which refuted and destroyed respectively the heresies and impieties of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, on a level with the four canonical Gospels. In like manner Justinian puts the dogmas of the first four councils on the same footing with the Holy Scriptures, and their canons by the side of laws of the realm.
(History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, from the revised fifth edition of 1910, 340-342; available online: see this particular portion online: § 65. The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils)
Hmmmm….. Is Dr. Phillip Schaff naive too? On a side note, I think that one of the “rules of engagement” for dialog should be that we represent each others views accurately. You know that I do not “reject” Vatican 2 as a valid ecumenical council. I do not believe the texts involved teach error. I merely reject the pastoral programs offered (which are not infallible or binding on the faithful) such as the new ecumenism. I know that you know my views, we have been discussing them for years, why not at least try to give an accurate summary?
Well sure its relevant. It deserves to be mentioned. However, you are making no room for any of the nuance we have introduced in regards to ecclesiastical infallibility. You do not even take it into consideration. Its like talking to an atheist who continues to crow over and over again that there are discrepancies in the gospels and so therefore the bible contains errors. Or who who ridicules the Genesis account of creation a mere 6000 years ago in six literal days. Don’t you find those people annoying? Especially if they are aware of the nuance involved in the christian doctrines of biblical inerrancy and just ignore them to make some ridiculous point against the strawman of their own imagination. No one wants to be that guy…. at least I hope not? You should try to model Brandon Addison and Katy who seem, so far, to be the only people here willing to have an honest conversation.
LikeLike
Susan,
If there truly is no cognitive dissonance at all then you need to ask yourself why you feel fine with Francis’s liberal delegates (whom Douthat argues appear to be Francis’s own envoy) advocating a more “pastoral” approach to Catholics engaged in sexual immorality but an intellectual like Douthat, who shares a lot in common with you, recognizes that things are heading in a dangerous direction. Elsewhere Douthat has said he doesn’t believe that it’s even possible for the pope to reverse direction, but he acknowledges that current developments are cause for alarm.
Again, this doesn’t falsify Catholicism (as Bryan seems to believe that DGH is attempting to do with his posts), but it does temper some of the rhetorical bravado about the superiority of the “CIP”. If some of your apologists took a page out of Douthat’s book I think the dialogue would be far more fruitful.
LikeLike
Katy,
Well, you are welcome I suppose. I find ecumenism particularly annoying because it so often brings forth (at least what appears to be) intentionally ambiguous language in an attempt to foster unity. I prefer nice crisp lines.
I consider myself to be a student of Aquinas. I am completely mystified at how you think his writings led you to the Lutheran church. (I converted from the LCMS btw) Its always gives me vertigo whenever people read the same works and come to such radically different conclusions. Lord help us! lol
LikeLike
Brandon Addison,
I agree that our apologetic needs to be understood in a more realistic light. For better or worse protestants are getting a very cartoonish view of ecclesiastical infallibility. I dont think that any of the arguments presented at CtC are wrong…. but they do need to address the dark side of the coin as well. If people convert to the Catholic Church and expect to find some kind of ecclesiastical utopia they will be very disappointed. If they come in wanting the authentic version of what they left behind I think they will be very pleased.
LikeLike
No there I go again just stating what the magisterium claims – it has divine authority. So did the Apostles. But divine authority does not necessitate inspiration. Nor does it necessitate a lack of objective truth which was the original assertion being replied to.
(And some like sbd are worried about getting left behind in the “discussion”? Don’t you fret honey chile’. The romanists have already been raptured and live in their own universe from which they occasionally sally out and impart the truth to the
inferiorseparated brethren. That, if it doesn’t remind one of Gulliver’s third to the flying island of Laputa populated by intelligent idiots which hovers over the land of Balnibari.)The suppressed premise that our theological better leaves out of his apologetical bon mot is that Rome claims infallibility for its magisterium’s ipsit dixit, inspiration or no. Mark that. Because said ipsit dixit is the fideistic cornerstone/magic wand for the Roman mindset/paradigm.
Just so you know.
True, when we ask a romanist how he knows this, the half hearted flip flop is a drive by appeal to “He who hears you, hears me”.
But ultimately it boils down to ‘because the magisterium said so’.
Because the magisterium teaches implicit faith in what the church believes – regardless if one knows what the church believes – is saving faith.
IOW this is just more of the same old schlock. If it is not the defense of a thousand clarifications/equivocations – the “Nothing you have said falsifies what I have said” routine – it is the “No true infallible romanist believes or teaches that”
fallacyparadigm.Until they do. Or Number One says so. Then the semper
eademfreedom doctrine to recalibrate the ecclesiastical chameleon’s posture in conjunction with justification by ignorant faith kicks in, willing minds get airbrushed into conformity and the autopilot is reactivated.LikeLike
Kenneth,
Yes Athanasius believed that Nicea didn’t err. Now show me proof that He believed it could not have erred. That’s the rub. I don’t believe that Nicea erred on the Trinity either. But that’s the benefit of a backward glance, just with Athanasius.
Hmmmm….. Is Dr. Phillip Schaff naive too? On a side note, I think that one of the “rules of engagement” for dialog should be that we represent each others views accurately. You know that I do not “reject” Vatican 2 as a valid ecumenical council. I do not believe the texts involved teach error. I merely reject the pastoral programs offered (which are not infallible or binding on the faithful) such as the new ecumenism. I know that you know my views, we have been discussing them for years, why not at least try to give an accurate summary?
Part of the problem is that you keep vacillating on what you think actually happened there. Often you come off as thinking that the Satan almost won but the Spirit just barely was able to hold him back but wasn’t strong enough from keeping him from using the council to throw the church into all manner of confusion.
And you can’t reject the ecumenism without rejecting Lumen Gentium. So, you can tell me all you want to that V2 was valid, but your complaints betray the fact that you don’t really. It’s absolute torture what you are doing with V2.
Well sure its relevant. It deserves to be mentioned. However, you are making no room for any of the nuance we have introduced in regards to ecclesiastical infallibility. You do not even take it into consideration. Its like talking to an atheist who continues to crow over and over again that there are discrepancies in the gospels and so therefore the bible contains errors. Or who who ridicules the Genesis account of creation a mere 6000 years ago in six literal days. Don’t you find those people annoying? Especially if they are aware of the nuance involved in the christian doctrines of biblical inerrancy and just ignore them to make some ridiculous point against the strawman of their own imagination. No one wants to be that guy…. at least I hope not? You should try to model Brandon Addison and Katy who seem, so far, to be the only people here willing to have an honest conversation.
I understand the nuance. The problem is that you all complain about us having no infallible interpreter when in practice you guys end up with the same thing. You don’t have an infallible interpreter of the infallible Magisterium because you aren’t infallible and you aren’t the Magisterium. You are effectively left on your own to fallibly interpret and apply infallible decrees, which is Protestant epistemology through and through.
It’s not dishonesty—its pointing out problems that you all will not honestly acknowledge. It won’t even cause you to think twice. You all (you are a slight exception to be fair) are calling us to commune with an interpreter that is supposed to make things clear, but the interpreter doesn’t make things clear in the sense you want simply by speaking when it tolerates what an honest interpretation of its documents in context should prohibit. Basically what you guys do is make church statements self-interpreting and self-authenticating but you simply will not allow that for Scripture. That is the problem.
If we need the church to be infallible, it must be infallible all the time. The parallel with atheism doesn’t work. I’m willing to take context into account. The problem is that when I do, your church looks even more fallible. The only way it won’t is if I buy into tortured ahistorical interpretations of your church’s documents. It’s the only way to reconcile US and LG and the behavior of your church.
I get the nuance, but it doesn’t help your case. I provides more evidence that your case is faulty. When it is clear that what Trent or any other earlier council did not mean what Rome says they mean today, you have only a few possible choices:
1. It doesn’t matter what the authors of Trent or anything earlier meant, it only matters what the church says it means today. (This is the radical apologetic I get from people such as Jonathan over on CCC).
2. The church has changed its dogma and can err.
The first is not defensible on anything but fideistic grounds, and it makes sense on fideistic grounds. The second actually accords with the evidence on the ground. What doesn’t make sense is the “well the church declared doctrine infallibly, but its current Magisterium is getting it wrong, but nevertheless we should continue to believe the church is infallible and submit to the Magisterium” (the position that you are trying oh so inconsistently to maintain).
When we say Scripture is infallible, we are talking about everything it affirms, not just half a sentence here and there.
LikeLike
The objective truth of a proposition does not entail the fallibility of the magesterium. Truth can exist objectively…. and part of that truth can be that the magesterium of the Catholic Church does not err when teaching to the entire church on faith and morals… the two are not mutually exclusive.
And this is the problem with “honest” romanist conversations.
Neither does the objective truth entail the infallibility of the magisterium, which is The performative paradigm/silent partner/objective truth presumed in all the above.
To posit otherwise is to assume the prot paradigm and therefore is categorically off the
chopping blocktable.Because it is uncharitable, sarcastic, patronizing etc. etc.
But Snow White has no mirrors at her house?
Do tell.
LikeLike
The problem is that you all complain about us having no infallible interpreter when in practice you guys end up with the same thing. You don’t have an infallible interpreter of the infallible Magisterium because you aren’t infallible and you aren’t the Magisterium. You are effectively left on your own to fallibly interpret and apply infallible decrees, which is Protestant epistemology through and through.
Come on, Robert. You telling me that if the shoe fits, wear it and Cinderella ain’t barefoot?
You have ruined my day.
Besides the pope already has some dainty little pointed slippers, so he isn’t looking for an excuse to loot some Nikes.
LikeLike
Brandon,
An substantial change in (T)raditional teaching as in dogma would falsify Catholicism. The law of contradiction must need apply to all things.
The reason myself and other Catholics aren’t alarmed is that we still know that morality cannot be changed. Yes, there are probably liberals who would like an anything goes ecclesial world, but Catholic marriage won’t give up the conserving aspect of its nature, and that ontologically. It can be nothing else but between one man and one women.
The worry that an intellectual like Douthat has is that Pope Frances is too left leaning, because it will have peripheral consequences for The Church, as in continued media confusion and maybe even confused pastors who perhaps won’t do their homework and learn what the final word of the synod actually means. So we as members of Christ’s Body are still called upon to pray for the synod, our cardinals, bishops, and the Pope,that God will lead His Church into all truth, but it isn’t with fear that we do so, as if we believe that God has forgotten His promise to us.
LikeLike
What I’m trying to say is that if we believe that God has infallibly guided the church in the past, preserving her from error by people who were within the Church herself then why wouldn’t we trust that she will still be kept from error. To my thinking it is problematic to say that she narrowly missed running upon the shoals of a host of Christological errors through the centuries, but she wrecked the ship at Trent. If she wrecked at Trent, I have no guarantee that she was correct prior or will be correct from Trent on into the future.
LikeLike
Sue, you get a “D” for those last two, as in de-luded. The fall is going to be hard. Where will you go?
LikeLike
CW,
I’m not sure that many of our RC interlocutors will see a fall if/when it happens. The notion of ecclesiastical infallibility is so qualified, and Bryan is so verbose, that they can make the Magisterium say square when plainly they said circle in the past.
Its credulity.
LikeLike
Susan,
To my thinking it is problematic to say that she narrowly missed running upon the shoals of a host of Christological errors through the centuries, but she wrecked the ship at Trent. If she wrecked at Trent, I have no guarantee that she was correct prior or will be correct from Trent on into the future.
Why? Why is it inherently impossible for the church to be right on some things and wrong on others? Why does leading people into all truth mean that the church has to get it right the first time every time?
LikeLike
Susan.
Douthat’s whole point is summarized by his statement in his latest column [http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/why-i-am-a-catholic/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog%20Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body#more-20448]:
Douthat also links to an article composed by Dominican theologians at various Catholic institutions that Douthat indicates says that same thing (I haven’t read it myself). You can find that article here: http://nvjournal.net/files/essays-front-page/recent-proposals-a-theological-assessment.pdf
All that to say, Douthat’s concern is *not* media coverage. As I quoted him at the conclusion of his Sunday Op-Ed, he even suggested that faithful Catholics may need to rebel against their Papa in order to retain papal infallibility!
I’m truly concerned for you because I believe that you’ve bought something that you don’t fully understand and I’m afraid you may soon have buyers remorse. The fact that you don’t see these changes looming makes me even more concerned for you.
I don’t claim to be a prophet, but mark my words that disillusionment with the RCC is on the horizon for converts. As one person privately told me (someone you would identify as someone friendly to the project at CtC), “The converts who came in for Benedict are going to come out because of Francis.My hope is that they do not abandon the faith entirely.” That is my hope as well and if you ever want to drop me a line, you have my personal e-mail.
LikeLike
Susan – I get my notion of there being such a thing as The Church from reading the scriptures that The Church has said are inspired. If it weren’t for The Church’s declaration that the scriptures are inspired, I wouldn’t know that they are.
Erik – So you trust the Scriptures because the Church tells you they’re inspired.
Who are you trusting to tell you that the Church is trustworthy?
It can’t be the Scriptures, so what or who is it?
LikeLike
Brandon,
Listen, I believe that you are concerned for me, but to be honest, I think that concern is a glib and gleeful kind if you are offering that I can give you a personal call so that you can direct me to somebody/anybody else’sversion of the true church, when the church that has been the church from Christianity’s inception goes to rot. No thank you, if that happened my foundation would crumbled and so would yours because it would mean that Christianity is not true.
Yes, there are many Catholics who think Pope Francis is shooting from the hip, and are concerned, but the Holy Spirit will guide the church through these rough waters too. People may leave but they will leave because they think that there can still be Christianity without Papal infalliblity. They simply don’t understand the implications. You don’t leave because things get bad, you stick around and pray for her. Through the consenus of the Cardinals things will straighten out, because a nuanced and middle way will be found. So while doctrines “surrounding” those issues may be affected the sacraments themselves will not be altered in such a way that undermines their integrity and efficacy
LikeLike
Susan (who seems a very nice lady) says: “Now if the church officially had contradicting doctrine, then there would be some serious confusion.”
I have seen nothing BUT confusion from Rome in my 50 years on this earth.
Susan says: “I get my notion of there being such a thing as The Church from reading the scriptures that The Church has said are inspired. If it weren’t for The Church’s declaration that the scriptures are inspired, I wouldn’t know that they are. I don’t mean to say that they aren’t inspired,but that without the Church’s role as pillar and foundation of Truth being guided by the Holy Spirit, the congregation who desire to know all that God has revealed in writing, would only have a fallible assurance.”
This is fatal and is the primary reason why WCF I:IV is so incredibly important. All the mischief starts right here. (I apologize if somebody already said that.)
LikeLike
Susan: An substantial change in (T)raditional teaching as in dogma would falsify Catholicism. The law of contradiction must need apply to all things.
The reason myself and other Catholics aren’t alarmed is that we still know that morality cannot be changed.
And there’s the issue in a nutshell. You know ahead of time that substantial changes cannot occur. Ergo, any appearance of a substantial change is merely illusory.
The law of contradiction need not apply if the conditions for contradiction are not established ahead of time!
Meanwhile, here is a substantial change. Paul declares that elders should be husbands of one wife, able to manage their children well — for if they cannot manage their own households, how will they manage the house of God?
The RC church declares that elders shall be husbands of no wife at all, for their care is solely for the church.
This is clearly, obviously, and certainly a substantial change. But not if we are first certain that no substantial change will ever happen!
LikeLike
Susan,
You seem to have this faith that good will prevail in the Church, but what you fail to realize is that once you’ve bought in, it will be your view of what “good” is that will change. Once you’ve bought in, what alternative do you have?
A book that comes to mind is Tom Wolfe’s excellent “I am Charlotte Simmons”. Charlotte is not the same young woman at the end of the book that she is in the beginning. She starts out counter-cultural but ends up fully assimilated. That’s how life works once we’ve bought in.
LikeLike
Jeff,
If that is the issue in a nutshell, then perhaps this will help clear it up.
“First, whenever there is an exercise of ecclesiastical authority that binds the conscience, we must obey it. We can never rightly disobey what binds our conscience. Second, we must distinguish between authentic Magisterial teaching on faith and morals on the one hand, and on the other hand prudential judgments, disciplines, or practices. The former do not change by contradiction; they develop only in continuity. The latter, however, can come and go, and even contradict previous decisions, because they are temporally conditioned, and the Church’s leaders are fallible with respect to them. (On prudential judgments, see “The “Catholics are Divided Too”” post.) In the case of the latter [i.e. prudential judgments], we are to be guided by an informed conscience (informed by the natural law and the authentic Magisterial teaching on faith and morals). It is incumbent upon us all to seek to inform our conscience, so that it may be a more reliable guide. As the Catechism teaches:
Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (CCC 1783)”
This was copied from CTC and was written by Bryan Cross.
LikeLike
Susan
Posted October 28, 2014 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
“…and the Church’s leaders are fallible with respect to them”
Susan, this is their straw man. If the Catholic Church is ever wrong on anything, it is wrong on everything. Yet the Church doesn’t claim perfection from stem to stern.
Meanwhile, these sola scripturists avoid explaining how they themselves permit divorce and remarriage when Christ is explicitly on the record against it. Who is the more faithful keeper of the scriptural Word, them or the Magisterium?
Don’t let them bully you or diminish you with their pettiness. Testify, sister. The Reformation needs a helluva lot of reforming itself.
LikeLike
Jeff,
You also said:”Meanwhile, here is a substantial change. Paul declares that elders should be husbands of one wife, able to manage their children well — for if they cannot manage their own households, how will they manage the house of God?”
There has been no change here. The Elders in the Catholic Church that I’ve met so far, or heard about, have all been married. If there are unmarried elders I don’t know about them.
Rgarding Priest’s, it is a different story. I know Priests that are unmarried, but there are ministers who have come into full communion with the Catholic Church through Pope Benedict XVI Personal Ordinariate. These men are former Anglican Priests who gave up their protests.
LikeLike
Thank you, Tom
LikeLike
Susan
Posted October 28, 2014 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
Thank you, Tom
Even though Darryl’s letting his henchman “Erik” do his ridicule thing, my comments are being blocked. If you don’t see me again, that’s why.
Very risible considering Darryl writes entire posts to sites that don’t accept comments. I used to give Darryl credit for allowing my comments, but he blocks me when I cut to close to the bone.
Keep it up. My only question remains whether they don’t understand what you’re saying or they just pretend not to.
BTW, except for the fundies, Protestantism is going to hell.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/last-episcopalian-been-born/
I wonder whether Calvinism will even be around in another century or two. Perhaps it was just a fad…
LikeLike
Brandon,
I will read the article written by different Dominicans on the subject. Thank you for the link.
LikeLike
Susan,
Can Tom stop by and post from your home computer?
Not every day, just occasionally as he keeps moving to fool Darryl’s blocking technology.
Keep testifying and he just might go to church.
LikeLike
Susan,
Nice bob and weave. You’re learning.
Why does the RCC forbid clergy from marrying when Scripture does not?
Jewish clergy could and can also marry and they predate the RCC by hundreds of years.
LikeLike
Tom,
While I was still investigating the Catholic Church(and I did so because of the confusion within mainline Protestantism), someone told me that Pentacostalism was rapidly growing in South America. I heard him, understood him, but was honestly wondering what “that”had to do with the fact that there has to, by necessity, be ecclesial authority or every doctrine we debate and argue is relegated to the field of opinion and forces us all to just be quiet. If there is no way to have doctrinal unity then all we will ever do is argue and splinter.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/the-catholics-are-divided-too-objection/
LikeLike
Susan,
If there is no way to have doctrinal unity then all we will ever do is argue and splinter.
But at least its more honest than arguing while the Magisterium ignores division. Explain to me again how the infallible Magisterium keeps welcoming both anti-abortion and pro-abortion politicians to the Eucharist with open arms and that not be division?
And what is the principled means by which you know that your understanding of the Magisterium is correct but Nancy Pelosi’s isn’t?
LikeLike
Jeff!
I sincerely apologize! I don’t know how I messed that up. The married men I was speaking of are deacons, not elders. So sorry for that.
LikeLike
Not worried…just too lazy to go back and read all the comments I missed. I remain convinced that the triumphalist claims from the RC apologists need to candidly confront the failure of their communion to pass on their faith to their own people or measurably improve their communities. Simply pretending the stats are made up or aren’t relevant because the theory is really, really true is a form of denial and intellectual dishonesty (Cargo Cult Theology?). In addition, they need to allow the very significant changes that flow through the teaching. A good example is the Athanasian Creed which makes remarkably absolutist claims about one must believe to avoid eternal damnation on the one hand and the modern RC catechism that gives everyone and their brother an out. The post hoc explanations to keep the artifice standing is simply not compelling to folks not already convinced…nor is it necessary to establish the reliability of the Christian faith (and the authority of the scriptures in particular). For those in love with the paradigm motif, the data/theory relationship (and fallibility) should be a compelling model for making sense of the infallibility of data without an infallible authority. So we are left with a “paradigm” that is ineffective and unnecessary.
It is interesting to contrast Douthat’s caveats and case with what one hears from the CtC and coffeehouse gadflies. I found this statement quite interesting…
I’m sympathetic, but I think the problems with comparative religion are deeply problematic:
1) Perhaps it wasn’t the Pope, but the political power that mattered
2) Islam is a religion of the book that has not splintered, yet is without a pope (though that isn’t exactly true in the US context where it has splintered to a much greater degree than in lands without freedom, wealth, and the entrepreneurial spirit that characterizes the US – perhaps these are far more crucial than one’s epistemological theory).
3) Eastern Orthodoxy seems to have done pretty well sans Pope for 1000 years. Again, perhaps it is temporal power that matters. It’s a lot harder to start a new evangelical church in Russia or Greece than in London or NYC.
I worry about those who have converted to Rome in a search for certainty (particularly those who have broken up their families to do so). Mixed religion families do a particularly poor job of passing any faith at all onto their kids. Rome is big on rules in a way that sets up people for failure (EO has a much more sane approach to marriage for example – more in keeping with Christ’s caveats than Rome) and lacks Gospel to give people hope (buying out some time in purgatory by attending a youth rally isn’t quite the same as trusting Christ to keep the law for me and having his righteous imputed to me). In my experience the RC model tends to lead to folks who give up and become recovering catholics or cafeteria catholics on one hand and folks who double down all the way to the Latin Mass on the other. Moderate orthodox RCs seem to rest on an unstable saddle point. But what do I know? I’ve never won a game show and don’t even have my own blog.
LikeLike
Robert,
Dissenting Catholics are not the magisterium. I can read the Catechism and see that there is a place from which dissenters dissent. The Catholic Church does not “welcome” anyone who chooses to ignore morality but will receive them again when they sincerly repent. This is good news for all of us, Robert.
LikeLike
And in the time between when I started typing my comment at work today to when I posted it, a whole new page of comments has been added.
LikeLike
How do you know? Some RCs tell me it is the spirit, not the letter that matters. Why is your textual rendering of the catechism to be preferred?
LikeLike
Susan
Posted October 28, 2014 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
Tom,
While I was still investigating the Catholic Church(and I did so because of the confusion within mainline Protestantism), someone told me that Pentacostalism was rapidly growing in South America. I heard him, understood him, but was honestly wondering what “that” had to do with the fact that there has to, by necessity, be ecclesial authority or every doctrine we debate and argue is relegated to the field of opinion and forces us all to just be quiet. If there is no way to have doctrinal unity then all we will ever do is argue and splinter.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/the-catholics-are-divided-too-objection/
There is no question that the Catholic Church–like any gathering of human beings–needed and needs and will always need reforming.
Thje problem is that the “reformers”–or The Reformers–are no better than that which they aspre–or presume–to reform.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers?
Darryl sit back in his bunker shooting at ducks, but when does he have to defend HIS religion, his version of Christianity?
Meanwhile, these sola scripturists avoid explaining how they themselves permit divorce and remarriage when Christ is explicitly on the record against it. Who is the more faithful keeper of the scriptural Word, them or the Magisterium?
This Darryl cannot answer. So he tries to block me, and his defenders are hushed.
As for his Renfield, his Igor, the man he lets do his dirty work, one “Erik Charter,” Erik recently shocked his Old Life compatriots [and Darryl remained silent] that it would be better to join a Lutheran congregation than a liberal Calvinist [PCUSA?] one.
Now THAT was interesting. Unfortunately, Darryl and his sub-sub-sect don’t listen to Erik either. Sorry, Erik, but you’re just a useful idiot for Darryl. Cannon fodder. Susan and I treat you with more respect than your co-religionists do.
Calvinism is a tough town.
LikeLike
Jeff,
This is especially for you. You could have found it on your own of course, but I looked it up and read it a little myself.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
LikeLike
cw, you’re missing the point. RC’sm is an abstraction. Doesn’t matter what people do. They have THE truth and THE mechanism. Everything else is gruel.
Though it is curious how the abstractions that buttress apologists’ claims make Roman Catholicism one of the most gnostic and antinomian forms of Christianity imaginable. It doesn’t matter what anyone does — bishops or laity — the abstractions are still in force.
LikeLike
Susan,
Lots of “I’s” there for someone who left behind Protestant opinions.
LikeLike
loser ken, part of the reason for the cartoonish view is that the Callers (and you sometimes) say that having an infallible magisterium fixes everything. Sure it doesn’t make the church everywhere holy in all it does. But what you don’t seem to recognize is that if you can agree that bishops do make mistakes or even err or disagree among themselves, how do you know that the dogmatic stuff taught by the infallible teachers is correct? You seem to say that above it all, the church has truth on its side irrespective of what the bishops do — they can never change the truth. Well, then you know the truth apart from the bishops and you judge them by the truth.
That’s Protestant. It’s not pray, pay and obey.
LikeLike
Loser Ken,
Was Nicea infallible about this:
Rome’s jurisdiction wasn’t universal.
LikeLike
Jeff, “any appearance of a substantial change is merely illusory.”
Brilliant. The penny dropped. Where have I seen this logic before? Christian Science.
LikeLike
Susan, from the article:
…but they are incapable of being promoted to sacred orders unless they separate from their wives, and make a vow of perpetual continence.
From Jesus: What God has joined together, let no man separate.
What kind of evidence would actually persuade?
LikeLike
igasx,
No form of gov’t can guarantee a decent life, but some are more prone than others and, because it distributes power, a full democracy, unlike that which was started by the Jacobins, gives us the best structure at stopping the abuse of power–btw, you did make a bit of an overgeneralization about democracies. But by itself, it can’t make any guarantees. Below is link to one of my blogposts that describe the continuums involved in improving things from the current status quo.
http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/2014/06/reviewing-cultural-case-for-capitalism.html
One other factor can be found in the consciousness of the people. That factor is the extent to which people externalize evil. The more they do, the more they will act as some of the groups you mentioned from the past. Avoiding the externalization of evil is an area where Martin Luther King Jr excelled with his prohibition against internal violence, his passion for winning opponents over, and his ability to blending views from opposing schools of thought.
.
LikeLike
Susan – While I was still investigating the Catholic Church(and I did so because of the confusion within mainline Protestantism)
Erik – The URCNA is Mainline Protestant?
LikeLike
Tom,
Clint from Carmel-by-the-Sea called and said he would leave the screen door unlocked and the IPad is on the endtable off of the dining room. Don’t worry about the dog — he’s harmless. He says post all you like and bring in the milk in the morning on your way out.
LikeLike
URC is barely on the sidelines
LikeLike
(I think she meant mainstream Protestantism. But how she thinks it’s more divided than worldwide Catholicism is anybody’s guess.)
LikeLike
TVD: Very risible considering Darryl writes entire posts to sites that don’t accept comments. I used to give Darryl credit for allowing my comments, but he blocks me when I cut to close to the bone.
Any post with two or more hyperlinks goes to Post Purgatory. Dunno if that’s your issue.
LikeLike
Robert,
As Schaff and I have already noted, the language Saint Athanasius uses is evidence that he believed it could not err.
But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever.
Is it possible that the word of the Lord err? I dont think soooooo….
For the statements are not fit for Christians to make or to hear, on the contrary they are in every way alien from the Apostolic teaching. . . . It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. But lest the ‘inventors of evil things’ make entire silence on our part a pretext for shamelessness, it will be well to mention a few points from Holy Scripture, in case they may even thus be put to shame, and cease from these foul devices. (Letter LIX to Epictetus, 3; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
I follow Saint Athanasius lead. I am content with the fact that the reformers do not uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold to their errors…. but, if i feel like it, I may just peg you with a few scriptures for good measure. You fail to understand the full scope of Church authority in the early church…. This is not a new error… all heretics make the same mistake.
Had Christ’s enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognised the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith, . . . (Against the Arians III, 58; NPNF 2, Vol. IV)
LikeLike
“Any post with two or more hyperlinks goes to Post Purgatory. Dunno if that’s your issue.”
Don’t falsify TVD’s persecution complex. It makes him feel special.
LikeLike
Robert (part II),
Lumen Gentium does not dogmatically define ecumenism. Lumen Gentium uses ecumenical language but does not somehow enshrine ecumenism into the deposit of faith for all time. So, yes, I can reject the new ecumenism and still hold that LG does not teach error.
1. V2 was a valid (non-dogmatic) ecumenical council. As such, it is infallible when teaching on faith and morals.
2. Various pastoral programs were offered at the council, none of which are binding on the faithful.
3. Ecumenism is one such program.
4. Ecumenism sucks.
How is that torturous? Regardless of what you may think of my views (or where you think those views inevitably lead) it is uncharitable to present them in a way that I do not recognize. I will link to a video with Mike Horton on “how to disagree”. Maybe you will find it useful.
Our complaint is not that you are not infallible. Our complaint is that the protestant paradigm doesnt offer certainty of doctrine.We do not suffer from the same pitfalls are sola scriptura because we adhere to the STM triad. Each leg of authority infallibily identifies, authenticates, and expounds upon the others. No single leg of authority can offer religious certainty on its own. The failures are by now well documented with the sola scriptura experiment. Scripture, taken all by itself, can not be divinely authenticated (without circular reasoning) and can not be expounded upon with any certainty of accuracy (witness the many religions that appeal to scripture to prove competing claims). You say that we are “in the same boat”, but we are not, because we do not defend or proclaim sola ecclesia. You say we “do not have an infallible interpreter of the infallible interpreter” but in a very real sense we do. If ever confusion occurs on some teaching of the magesterium, some document of V2 for example, the faithful simply turn to Scripture and Tradition. If the feud continues (as it sometimes does) we await clarification from the infallible LIVING magesterium. In each instance, every leg we turn to offers us divine guidance and an authoritative voice. This is all obviously lightyears ahead of sola scriptura.
You do not believe that the words written in your bible “are infallible all the time”. You nuance that to death. You believe there are entire chapters of your bible that are not inspired but are just later additions or scribal errors. Anyone who has read the Chicago statement understands a WHOLE HOST of qualifications on biblical inerrancy. The atheism exampel works perfectly. In both cases people are just arguing against what their own imagination tells them infallibility should look like. Selective skepticism. Selective acceptance of nuance. Wack. Super wack.
That is an unsupported assertion. The Church does not corrupt the teachings of previous councils although they may expand upon the existing truth of said works through doctrinal development.
With option 3 being that the Church has never contradicted itself and what the Church teaches today in in perfect harmony with what it has always taught in the past. I understand you do not like that option, but it isn’t just taken off the table because you want there to be only 2 choices instead of three.
What about the long ending of mark? What about the story of jesus drawing in the sand? “Let He who knows no sin cast the first stone”. Is that inspired? How do you know for sure?! Is James inspired? Luther didnt think so….. how do you know that it is for sure? The whole Catholic world ha sbeen waiting on the answer to these questions for centuries…. we probably wont get one before your microbrand of Christianity fades into obscurity and out of the history books all-together.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
As Schaff and I have already noted, the language Saint Athanasius uses is evidence that he believed it could not err.
But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever.
Is it possible that the word of the Lord err? I dont think soooooo….
You’re flailing. Athanasius is looking back on the council and is noting that it did not err and because it did not err that is evidence of it being the word of the Lord. You and I both know that if Nicea had come to a different conclusion, he would not have said such a thing.
Where is the evidence that Athanasius believed going into Nicea that it would have been possible for it to err. And if he did believe it was impossible for ecumenical councils to err, on what basis could he refuse to submit to the Arian councils that were called after Nicea. Nobody knew at the time that these would be rejected as ecumenical councils. The standards for ecumenical councils come later, not before. Take off your Rome-colored glasses.
Athanasius’s ecclesiology may not have been Calvin’s, but it wasn’t Rome’s or Constantinople’s either.
LikeLike
This was copied from CTC and was written by Bryan Cross.
If that is the issue in a nutshell, then perhaps this will help clear it up.
No it just confirms the all around bias/incompetence of romanists to the question.
“Second, we must distinguish between authentic Magisterial teaching on faith and morals on the one hand, and on the other hand prudential judgments, disciplines, or practices.”
“We must distinguish”. This is the mark of the beast, the dead giveaway, the blindman’s poker tell that no matter how much Bryan tries to philosophically doublecross his hearers with a shell game of red herrings, epistemologically he ultimately has to appeal to the believer’s private judgement. End of story. The guy is a prot in wolf’s clothing.
But that’s been the case all along and it has been amusing to see the various permutations dandled before our eyes in hopes that like babes in Toyland we will join the vicious delusion.
Priests?
They offer sacrifices. As divinely directed.
But after Christ, a high priest after the order of Melchizedek accomplished his work at Calvary Heb.7-10, there no longer remains any sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.
IOW the Aaronic priesthood of the OT Jews has been permanently retired and the pseudo Aaronic priesthood of Romanism is a blasphemous presumption that denies Christ even as fulsomely and nominally it professes to honor him in the sacrifice of the mass.
Yeah, I know what the Catechism says. Yeah, I know sean needs a real Roman Catholic upbringing. Yeah I know the Magisterium is supposed to be infallible because Athanasius said so . . . . yadda yadda yadda.
Would it be too much to ask Bryan & Co. to at least come up with something new for a change?
LikeLike
DGHART,
The magesterium is very helpful…. but it doesn’t fix *everything*. You are also lacking in the area of Sacred tradition. We know that the “dogmatic stuff” is correct because of said Tradition and also from Sacred Scripture. All three legs of authority are needed or else you get…. well… the circular reason that is so common place with sola scriptura adherents
LikeLike
The magesterium is very helpful…. but it doesn’t fix *everything*. You are also lacking in the area of Sacred tradition. We know that the “dogmatic stuff” is correct because of said Tradition and also from Sacred Scripture. All three legs of authority are needed or else you get…. well… the circular reason that is so common place with sola scriptura adherents
Thus spaketh Pope Kenneth.
(But not to worry. The Nihil Obstat Imprimatur rubber stamp will arrive shortly by Fed Ex. The pontiff’s
Dagon’s fish hatmitre will take a little longer. )LikeLike
Loser Ken, “Our complaint is that the protestant paradigm doesnt offer certainty of doctrine.”
How certain is RC doctrine when everyone I ask about church teaching refers me to a reference work that aggregates all the church’s teachings (Denzinger) even though only two church teachings are infallible?
Please tell us, lk, where we can find RC teaching? Catechism of Trent, Baltimore Catechism, JPII Catechism?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
All three legs of authority are needed or else you get…. well… the circular reason that is so common place with sola scripture adherents
Unlike the non-circular Roman reasoning:
Scripture and tradition point us to the church
How do we know what Scripture and tradition are?
The church tells us infallibly.
The church tells us what points to the church. Brilliant.
LikeLike
lk, where is sacred tradition? How can sacred tradition add to Scripture? What prevents it from being autonomous? Think the perpetual virginity of Mary.
LikeLike
Darryl,
How certain is RC doctrine when everyone I ask about church teaching refers me to a reference work that aggregates all the church’s teachings (Denzinger) even though only two church teachings are infallible?
Talk to a Romanist long enough and the answer will be “We only have to produce one infallible teaching to show we’re better, nyah, nyah, nyah.” Then, when you cite a Bible verse as our infallible teaching, you’ll get a “well what’s the infallible interpretation of that.”
For some reason, US and LG notwithstanding, RC doctrine is perspicuous.
Meanwhile, the bishops can’t figure out that homosexuality is a sin on their first go-round. Things would have been so much better for the Arians if they had waited until today to make their move.
LikeLike
At least some conservative Catholics are thinking more honestly about the fallibility of infallibility:
Even if such “annulment reform” did not explicitly change the Church’s doctrine on sacramental marriage, it would be a de facto evasion of the doctrine’s principles; this would seemingly be tantamount to the Pope effectively contradicting dogma and, hence, seriously undermining the plausibility of papal infallibility if not rendering it an ecclesial fiction. Why the latter? Consider the immense challenge of believing in papal infallibility (or possibly even in the traditional deference given to the pope as a spiritual father) in a context where the pope, as the one officer of the Church who is capable of invoking such supreme authority, is also effectively and intentionally destroying the Church’s previously established infallible dogmas (and possibly prior ex cathedra teachings) via an artful “back door” means that does not require him to issue new “ex cathedra” teaching. It would be difficult to believe that “ex cathedra” pronouncements from such an office are always (and guaranteed by God to be) correct if the very same office can and is used to creatively nullify established infallible dogmas. The office’s undermining of truth in one instance would render it insufficiently reliable (at least to the extent necessary for meeting the high threshold of infallibility) for revealing truth in another instance. Furthermore, one’s doubt in the papal office might also be compounded through considering the possibility of such truth-undermining papal actions becoming a practice, especially once a clear precedent for such creative undermining is established; this pope and other popes could intentionally use various creative means to effectively destroy all sorts of inconvenient dogma beyond those related to marriage without ever changing the Church’s official teaching…
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2014/10/papal-permissiveness-via-annulment-reform/
LikeLike
Kenneth – The objective truth of a proposition doe snot entail the fallibility of the magesterium.
“doe snot en tail?”
Q: What was the result of a buck backing up to a doe with a cold?
A: doe snot en tail
LikeLike
Zrim,
The best quote from the piece you linked to is this one:
Perhaps the best route for traditionalists Catholics hoping to dissuade Francis from pursuing such permissive “reforms” is for them to consciously and cunningly organize themselves into a formidable intense minority/majority within the Roman Church. This would at least preclude Francis from indulging in the self-delusion that traditionalists Catholics will be reliably docile and compliant if he pushes the Church off what Douthat calls “the precipice.”
So, because the infallible pope in the exercise of his teaching office (which he is supposed to do infallibly) might teach error, the solution is for the true RCs to form a large enough voting block to counter him? This is how infallibility works? It sounds more like the U.S. Senate.
LikeLike
Ken: The objective truth of a proposition does not entail the fallibility of the magisterium.
Right, but it does mean that infallibility, if true, is synthetic and not analytic: It is (hypothetically) a special property of the magisterium that has to be argued for, and it not simply true by definition.
The way that Susan and others are arguing is that there just *has* to be an infallible magisterium, or else no way of knowing the truth.
The very notion of objective truth speaks against this. If there is, in fact, objective truth, then we might well be able to know it outside of an infallible magisterium. There does not *have* to be an infallible magisterium.
LikeLike
When I watch Madison Bumgarner I can’t help but think it could have been different if Tom had chosen the neck beard instead of the mullet.
LikeLike
Who or what was Israel’s infallible magisterium?
LikeLike
0.25 WS ERA isn’t infallible, EC.
It’s close tho..
LikeLike
SF won’t make the playoffs next year. But watch out 2016.
Back to theology, yo (emoticon).
LikeLike
Curt- Yours is a classic example of Doublethink which is a dynamic of groupthink. Your mantra regarding externalizing violence, blending schools of opposing thought, use of the word democracy with a meaning that conflicts with it’s normal usage creating an assumed association is a conscious act of unconsciousness. There’s no there there. It’s all a mishmash of conflicting ideologies. It has no application in the real world except as a tool for tyrants. The irrationality built into “class consciousness” by way of conformity can only lead to dehumanizing actions directed against outgroups or individuals. Your ideal “democracy” is by definition an existential fallacy. The actions of a group does not necessarily lead to the betterment of a particular individual.
Carl, the reason the progressive elites push class consciousness is because it stunts critical thinking, distorts reality, and impairs the moral judgement of the sheeple who drink the elixir. With the sheeple in a confused state the progressive elites convince them that evil is good and that authoritarianism is democracy.
LikeLike
Is Peter Daniel Haworth is a Roman Catholic or an “insider”?
Why not read the perspective of a Catholic to gain proper insights and understanding and a more balanced or nuanced perspective? There are plenty around …
LikeLike
Robert, kind of like playing with a Ouiji board (happy Halloween). Or shooting marbles to decide which parts of the Bible are infallible (Jesus Seminar).
LikeLike
Jeff, and this is how CtCers remind me of theonomists. For the former, the Bible is insufficient to norm ecclesiastical life so we need a pope to give us doctrinal certainty; and for the latter, natural revelation is insufficient to govern civil life so we need special revelation to give us political certainty. The lack of faith in God’s respective books to do what they are ordained to do in their respective orders is staggering, not to mention the high octane demand for certainty in this life that has never been promised.
LikeLike
J-Loh, Haworth’s “a nominal and conflicted Catholic,” per his one comment within a previous post that got the ball rolling on this topic (and caused a food fight). Is that sufficiently insider?
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2014/10/appropriate-skepticism-papal-authority/
LikeLike
From Zrim’s link:
“Take, for instance, the hypothetical case of a well-meaning, but misguided, pope who is more concerned with advancing his sentimentalized view of “love” than he is in understanding the importance of correct doctrine (let alone providing doctrinally correct leadership to his church). Is it not plausible that such a pope might run rough-shod over important doctrine in hopes of better advancing the church’s “love” to the world? Furthermore, might such a pope find it necessary to accomplish this through a de facto evasion of long-standing doctrine via a pastoral directive that effectively undermines such doctrine?”
Just a hypothetical, of course…
LikeLike
Jason Loh, how many times do people here quote or praise Ross Douthat? Isn’t he RC? Isn’t he distinctly more thoughtful than most RC apologists?
LikeLike
Igasx,
Your last note simply tries to label to discredit. And unfortunately, unfortunate because this is not only a Christian site, this is a reformed site, your note is par for the course here.
You label without documents or proving. That others have tried to develop hybrids of competing schools is not new. Martin Luther King Jr. did that when he compared and contrasted Capitalism with Marxism (see starting with page 92, http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ows/seminars/aahistory/Pilgrimage.pdf). All such hybrids do is to recognize valid concerns of competing views and try to blend them together.
Also, there are a number of definitions of democracy in play and how many one considers depends on one’s location. In America, democracy is fully exhausted by restricting voting to candidates of one of two parties every x number of years. Here, republic and democracy are synonyms despite the limits we put on the implementation of democracy. Back during the founding fathers’ time, the democracy they recognized as such was more of a pure democracy. Go to Europe and both the Left and Right here and you will see that democracy includes protests and other actions. The general concept behind democracy is that the people rule. What I just mentioned are ways by which that rule takes place.
Finally, I didn’t say democracy would guarantee wanted results. All I said is that structurally speaking, democracy distributes power. Other factors need to come into play to give the democratic structure a chance to improve things for more people. So if you are going to try to discredit what I am saying, at least be accurate in what you try to discredit.
LikeLike
Curt, presumably you want democracy to evenly redistribute “power” to individuals. Why not reject the use of power instead of redistributing it? It seems to me that power is the ability to control other people’s behavior. Why does gaining power appeal to you? I think you should be kind to your neighbors, not try to gain power and control over them.
You are using democracy as power to redistribute power. This is still taking something from certain individuals to give to other individuals. I don’t see why democracy should be appealing to anyone except those without power that want power. I distrust people who are trying to gain power over people; that’s the domain of sociopaths.
LikeLike
Ross Douthat is someone we can do business with, unlike the Callers who are locked away in their bunker with their fingers in their ears and the Kenneth/Susan team who post from their Roman Catholic colony on the Planet Lovetron where logic and objectivity go to die.
LikeLike
Maybe Sir Elton will write a song about Bergoglio — Pontiff in the Wind?
http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/10/29/elton-john-tells-crowd-of-stars-and-donors-pope-francis-is-my-hero
LikeLike
Zrim,
“The lack of faith in God’s respective books to do what they are ordained to do in their respective orders is staggering”
Of course RCism views Scripture as ordained to function authoritatively within the scope of tradition and the ecclesia. If you mean the lack of faith in God’s respective books to function as the sole infallible authority in faith and doctrine, then yes, because that’s not their ordained purpose.
“not to mention the high octane demand for certainty in this life that has never been promised.”
Do you have high octane certainty what you identify as God’s respective books are indeed God’s respective books? Presumably you base your view that such certainty in this life has never been promised upon your reading of those books as teaching such. RCism isn’t stark rationalism so to characterize it as promoting certainty in that light isn’t warranted.
LikeLike
Gee whillickers, Clete, Ken, Susan, et al — why would Elton Freaking John be such a big fan of Pope Bono, er, Francis?
LikeLike
CvD, not high octane certainty but infallible assurance. Or like the man once said, I could be wrong but I doubt it. Can the pope say that? Only when the little red light of ex cathedra is off. But who is in charge of the light? Maybe the man behind the curtain. Keep your eye on the shell.
LikeLike
As the merry go round continues to turn.
Or here we go again with the non sequiturs and serial inanities.
Of course RCism views Scripture as ordained to function authoritatively within the scope of tradition and the ecclesia. If you mean the lack of faith in God’s respective books to function as the sole infallible authority in faith and doctrine, then yes, because that’s not their ordained purpose.
There’s no doubt that history and the church play an important part in Christianity, but the marked inability of Bryan & Co. to deal with 2Tim.3:17 remains. If “every good work” does not include the good work of determining where the true church is to be found, words have no meaning and any idea of revelation revealing truth is nonsensical.
Not to worry though, all this is categorically beyond the noumenal realm for B&C.
Do you have high octane certainty what you identify as God’s respective books are indeed God’s respective books? Presumably you base your view that such certainty in this life has never been promised upon your reading of those books as teaching such. RCism isn’t stark rationalism so to characterize it as promoting certainty in that light isn’t warranted.
But over and above this our theologicall parvenu insists that he does have high octane assurance that the church trumps Scripture at every turn outside of Matt. 16:18 narrowly considered.
And Romanism isn’t raw fideism; a meretricious fraud and vicious circle, delusion, superstition.
No indeedy, that can’t be because it can’t be.
Never mind that Rome’s claims are self serving and a conflict of interest, while Scripture stands outside, above and before all other pretenders to supremacy, including the magisterium.
LikeLike
Bob,
RCism agrees that Scripture is useful and profitable – that’s why it’s authoritative. Saying something is useful and profitable does not necessitate something is the sole infallible authority.
“If “every good work” does not include the good work of determining where the true church is to be found”….”that the church trumps Scripture at every turn outside of Matt. 16:18 narrowly considered.”
I take it you just weren’t thinking clearly.
“Never mind that Rome’s claims are self serving and a conflict of interest, while Scripture stands outside, above and before all other pretenders to supremacy, including the magisterium.”
That would be the Scripture you identify as a collection of books that has asterisked passages and remains ever-provisional and fallible right? Semper reformanda.
And if Rome’s claims are self serving and a conflict of interest just because it claims divine authorization, I fail to see how the Apostles’ claims should not be cast in the same light (just as atheists and Jews would likely charge).
LikeLike
Cletus,
That would be the Scripture you identify as a collection of books that has asterisked passages and remains ever-provisional and fallible right? Semper reformanda.
If the presence of asterisked passages means there is no certainty as to what Scripture is, then you need to call up Francis and tell him to excommunicate all the RC textual critics who have worked alongside Protestants to tell us what should be asterisked and what shouldn’t be based on, you know, actual textual evidence.
But we’re not holding our breath because Scripture for Rome is at best an afterthought. Rome could function just fine without the Bible. Synod’s on the family that can’t figure out what the Bible says about homosexuality and cohabitation on the first pass don’t lie. It doesn’t need tradition either. Remember one of your own claimed to be the tradition. Was he speaking ex cathedra then?
LikeLike
Like I said, more of the same old seriatum from the usual suspects.
Blah blah blah. Of course we already know Romanists don’t agree that Scripture is the sole infallible supreme authority. So what?
Thinking clearly?
Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
No, it doesn’t say what it clearly says. It says what Rome clearly wants it to say.
Koolaid? Red herring? Scripture is “ever provisional and fallible”? Ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei/The reformed church is always being reforming by the word of God?
Nah, don’t bother us with the facts, our paradigm is already made up.
Ah yes, the old standby canard and unassailable/circular delusion: The magisterium = the Apostles.
Never mind that Scripture clearly makes that claim for the Apostles, but never Rome.
Get a new schtick please.
LikeLike
‘Parvenu,’ now that’s a great word. It’ll be difficult to work that into everyday speech, though. I’ll give it a shot.
LikeLike
DGHART,
How certain is RC doctrine when everyone I ask about church teaching refers me to a reference work that aggregates all the church’s teachings (Denzinger) even though only two church teachings are infallible?
Please tell us, lk, where we can find RC teaching? Catechism of Trent, Baltimore Catechism, JPII Catechism?
Any of those catechisms would be perfect. Again, I keep on hearing from you guys how *nobody* understands RC teaching…. but the weird thing is, people Like Michael Horton, RC Sproul, James White, etc. seem to be able to understand it perfectly. I hear them each give fantastic summaries of RC dogma whenever asked to do so. Gee, I wonder how they ever sifted through Pelosi, Biden, and all those various catechisms?
LikeLike
Robert,
Unlike the non-circular Roman reasoning:
Scripture and tradition point us to the church
How do we know what Scripture and tradition are?
The church tells us infallibly.
The church tells us what points to the church. Brilliant.
Its encouraging that after several years you have at least *almost* learned something. Progress.
How do we know about Scripture? Magesterium (Hippo, Carthage, Trent, etc) and Tradition (just read a book by Dr. Kruger.)
How do we know which Church? Scripture (Matt 16 & 18, Acts 15, etc) and Tradition (Petrine primacy, apostolic succession, etc)
How do we know what constitutes Tradition? Scripture (material sufficiency, 2 Thess 2:15), and the magesterium (unanimous consent of the fathers, dogmatic declarations, etc)
Without all three working in harmony you fail. All three must be together. STM triad>sola scriptura
LikeLike
Jeff,
Right, but it does mean that infallibility, if true, is synthetic and not analytic: It is (hypothetically) a special property of the magisterium that has to be argued for, and it not simply true by definition.
The way that Susan and others are arguing is that there just *has* to be an infallible magisterium, or else no way of knowing the truth.
The very notion of objective truth speaks against this. If there is, in fact, objective truth, then we might well be able to know it outside of an infallible magisterium. There does not *have* to be an infallible magisterium.
I think you have really nailed it! I am not sure if i would agree with the infallibility of the magesterium not being analytic…. but we will shelf that, its a minor point. I think you are absolutely correct. People make choices all the time without infallibile guidance. Many of these with great degrees of certainty. There are two ways to certainty that I can see
1. Reason
2. Divine authentication
Unfortunately for protestants, option 2 is off the table (no divine church no divine tradition). The problem that Catholics have with sola scriptura is that when it comes to questions of canon or biblical interpretation, option 1 just doesn’t get us to where we need to be. Hence, the perceived advantage between paradigms.
LikeLike
EDIT The above should read “option 2 is so often off the table”
LikeLike
Ken: Unfortunately for protestants, option 2 is off the table (no divine church no divine tradition).
Wait, I missed the part where “Scripture” is not option 2?
LikeLike
Robert,
“If the presence of asterisked passages means there is no certainty as to what Scripture is”
Zrim says there’s no certainty on anything, let alone identification of Scripture.
Bob,
“Thinking clearly?”
Yes because you first criticized Rome for not allowing Scripture to attest to the identification of the church, then in next breath criticize one of those primary appeals to Scripture because it is used to attest to her identification – you were just being inconsistent.
“No, it doesn’t say what it clearly says. It says what Rome clearly wants it to say.”
Yes and what it clearly says is not “Scripture is the sole infallible authority”. How could it anyways in the first place since SS wasn’t operative when that passage was written?
“The reformed church is always being reforming by the word of God?”
Sure so it seems kind of important that the word of God be identified as infallible, not as fallible and ever-provisional for that to actually work – how can the church always be reformed by a standard that itself can always be reformed? Semper reformanda.
“The magisterium = the Apostles.”
The point was that the basis of your criticism (divine authorization claims are bad) indicts the Apostles as well. You’re free to retire that and make a new criticism in place of it though.
“Never mind that Scripture clearly makes that claim for the Apostles, but never Rome.”
That would be the Scripture you identify as a collection of books that has asterisked passages and remains ever-provisional and fallible right? Semper reformanda.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
If Rome tells us what tradition is and why tradition means, as well as Scripture, Rome is king. Rome doesn’t allow for the thought that maybe, just maybe, the Apocryha ain’t inspired. Rome ignores casts swaths of tradition that specifically deny the claims the pope makes for himself.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
IOW, You have a one legged stool. You all, on paper, explicitly deny that the Magisterium is inspired in the same way as Scripture. You all can’t tell us what tradition is. For some reason the church must infallibly declare what the canon of Scripture is, but not the canon of tradition.
“Just trust the Magisterium” isn’t compelling when it can’t figure out that homosexuality is a sin on the first pass, Makes false promises of safety to its opponents, and ranks among the most worldly institutions the world has ever seen.
LikeLike
Joel,
So if I as an individual reject power, that power will disappear? You didn’t quite get the gist of what I was writing. There are two options: democracy or the consolidation of power. Democracy involves self-rule. Unfortunately, too many people are following your suggestion and that leads to elite-centered rule.
In addition, power can be exercised for other means than self-interest. Having a collective consciousness, hope that doesn’t sound too progressive, allows one to use the small bit of power that democracy affords for the benefit of others. Also, the idea of democracy is that the interests of many are put in the same pot so that, hopefully, legislation would be more balanced than favoring special interests like it does today.
And for those who are too caught up in intramural doctrinal battles and culture wars, the love of money is what is ruling most of the world. Considering the scriptural warnings against such a love, us Christian bloggers are discussing what?
LikeLike
Curt: There are two options: democracy or the consolidation of power.
There is one option: consolidation of power, by democracy or by some other means. A memo went out right around the election of 1800 — political parties are inevitable.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
One of these days hopefully you’ll wake up and realize that the reason that Catholicism may be superior to Reformed Protestantism is not because it’s obviously more logical. Insisting on this just makes you look dumb.
Circumspection is not a strong suit of Catholicism and circumspection and logic go hand in hand.
Get older, in other words.
Bryan’s past 40 and he still thinks he can write logically airtight 10,000 word articles dealing with religion. He can’t.
LikeLike
All Bryan can resort to is insisting no one has refuted anything he’s said, while at the same time censoring 80% of the comments from people refuting things he’s said. After awhile, no one bothers to read him or to try to comment, which just increases his confidence that he can’t be refuted.
Whatever.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I edited that comment so that it read *option 2 is so often off the table*. For example, when It comes to biblical interpretation or even the Canon it self.
LikeLike
Robert,
But Tradition tells us who the Church is and what the Church teaches! In fact, Tradition also tells us what scripture is and what scripture teaches…. So why isnt Tradition King? Your conclusion (Sola ecclesia) doesnt following from your premesis.
LikeLike
Erik,
One day you will wake up and realize that anyone can make unsupported assertions. Making an actual argument is hardly (or at least trying to take the ones presented). “Rome isnt more logical just because I say so” isnt compelling.
LikeLike
Meanwhile at CTC we get logic like this. Apparently it’s o.k. to get a “civil divorce” as long as you don’t get divorced in the church’s eyes. And people think us 2K people are out there:
(From a commenter, not an author — but approved through moderation and not corrected by an author):
August – I know the anxiety and fear of which you speak, but I would encourage you not to be afraid. Our Lord commands us not to be afraid, because He has made great promises to the Church – even when we are confused about what’s happening within her.
As for your example about the wife, I would say that a “disagreement about mainly money” can actually be quite a few different things: she wants to spend it on clothes and he wants to spend it on food; she wants to spend it on private school and he wants to spend it on cars; she wants to spend it on higher quality food and he wants to spend it on a greater quantity of food; she wants to spend it on food and he wants to waste it on alcohol. Or it could be that it’s a disagreement “mainly about money” because he doesn’t give her access to any of the family’s money because he wants to isolate her from contact with the outside world so he can manipulate, frighten, and abuse her. Or it could be a disagreement “mainly about money” because she won’t let him spend the money on internet porn. These may sound like once-in-a-blue-moon kind of stories, but it happens. I am sincerely glad if you do not know anyone in these circumstances, but sadly, I know of at least a handful.
Depending upon the circumstances, civil divorce actually might be recommended for her to protect herself and her children from the man squandering all they have. Or maybe she just needs to be told to try a little harder to work it out. I don’t claim to be able to have adequately evaluated every case of civil divorce in the U.S. to determine whether it was a necessary protection for one of the spouses or whether it was simply a failure of fidelity and charity on the part of both. Either way, civil divorce does not mean their marriage is invalid or annulled, it only means that legally she can protect herself and her children, and provide for their legitimate needs. It’s tricky, it’s not always clear what’s really going on in that relationship, and as far as I know, the Church should always require the spouses to maintain the hope of reconciliation – seeking it earnestly and not re-marrying. But the point is that things are not always as they seem in troubled relationships. Sometimes legal separation is a legitimate protection (for either spouse) against the abuse of the other, quite apart from the question of re-marriage. When one spouse (sadly) needs such protection, it would be a grave injustice for the Church to refuse such an individual the consolation of the Eucharist.
Beth
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I’m saying logic is poor grounds for establishing religious truth claims. Once you pile assertion upon assertion and assign probabilities of each assertion being true, you eventually refute yourself.
Catholicism boils down to looking at the Church today and trying to argue backwards using shaky concepts like “development of doctrine” and “The Magisterium” to root the Church of today in Jesus.
This is like looking at ourselves and arguing how miraculous we are since we can trace our origins all the way back to the beginning of mankind. The only problem is, so can every other person.
Protestant churches have as much history as the 21st Century Roman Catholic Church does. We just have different paths on our family trees.
Unless you can get all the way back to Jesus using pure, unquestioned logic you have nothing on me as a Protestant.
LikeLike
The entire edifice for the truth of Roman Catholicism is supposed to be the Motives of Credibility — things outside of Roman Catholic belief that point to the church and show her to be true. Examine these Motives sometime and ask yourself how rock solid these “proofs” for someone who hasn’t previously believed Catholicism to be true.
Another interesting thing to look at is how fertile the ground was at the time of the Reformation for dissent. How in the world would the Reformers have been allowed to live if there weren’t hundreds of thousands if not millions of others who were ready to accept their teachings and to provide material and political support. Obviously the church had not been “one” in spirit for quite a long time — hundreds of years.
LikeLike
Ken: There are two ways to certainty that I can see
1. Reason
2. Divine authentication
Or 3. Empirical methods, which are distinct from reason.
Unfortunately for protestants, option 2 is off the table (no divine church no divine tradition). The problem that Catholics have with sola scriptura is that when it comes to questions of canon or biblical interpretation, option 1 just doesn’t get us to where we need to be. Hence, the perceived advantage between paradigms.
The advantage is only perceived, and the perception comes about by tucking the uncertainties under the rug.
Consider these two different epistemological approaches:
(1) The motives of credibility are sufficient for me to trust in the church. The church now tells me the canon and its interpretation.
(2) The collective judgement of the church is sufficient for me to establish that the canon certainly includes the 66 books.
In the first case, you have conditional certainty: IF your assessment of the MoC is correct, then you have certainty. But you only have X% certainty that your assessment of the MoC is correct. Hence, your certainty can never rise above X%.
In the second case, you also have conditional certainty: IF my assessment of the church’s ability to recognize the canon is correct, then I have certainty.
In other words, both of us have uncertainty. Yours, however, is hidden away from view.
LikeLike
The point was that the basis of your criticism (divine authorization claims are bad) indicts the Apostles as well. You’re free to retire that and make a new criticism in place of it though.
Ever feel like you are talking to a brick wall?
Is the inability to follow an argument endemic to romanism?
The Apostolic Scripture makes claims for itself and the Apostles that it never makes for Rome.
As for the supposed unanimous monolithic consent of the church fathers that Peter was pope because of Matt. 16:18, it doesn’t exist. You know, the ‘taught everywhere, at all times, by everyone’ of Vincent of Lerins that Rome “claims” justifies its “claims” to fulfilling the same, hence its claim to fame.
And Carthage and Hippo really really are in Italy and Scripture wasn’t inspired or Scripture until The Church Said So.
IOW truth is what we say it is or nominalism, Bry’s old bugaboo. Truth does not exist apart from the Church’s imprimatur. But since like all Roman apologists, you don’t have the infallible papal chrism, pound sand. (And get ready to whitewash/tarbrush your credulity after Francis calls a couple more synods of bishops.)
Neither does Scripture define itself as including “Tradition” in the roman sense of uninspired practice/history, while only once in 2 Thess 3:6 does it refers to apostolic teachings/practice as tradition. Every other time it reprobates the traditions of men.
So where were we?
The circular/suppressed premise that the magisterium is on par with the Apostles. The golden calf, sacred cow, holiest of the holy/wholly invisible and unquestionable presuppositions of Romanism for Romanists. The defense of which, as above, consists in the outright denial that such a thing is even possible. Like square circles. (Or homosexual marriage. Until the bishops come round to Francis’s infallibly jesuitical way of looking at things. Wait for it. )
Well, if you want to make the argument for the magisterium, go ahead, but so far all you have done is gratuitously assume it, not prove it, which is incidentally your burden over here.
Of course, over at CtC it’s another story.
That’s where Scripture, reason and history take a beating from its so called friends.
LikeLike
On Kenneth’s #2 – Divine Authentication.
First you have to establish the RCC is Divine using the MOC’s.
Kenneth just presumes the Church is divine.
Not good enough if we’re using logic.
Sometimes I get the feeling from Kenneth and Susan that they are so relieved that their doubts were removed because finally, SOMEBODY came along and claimed authority, putting an end to all of these confusing, competing Christian truth claims.
Could it be that the RCC, knowing that many vulnerable people are looking for such an authority figure in their lives, figured out that this was an excellent marketing strategy in a crowded religious marketplace?
Keep in mind that we didn’t know the Pope was infallible until well into the 19th Century.
LikeLike
Oh yeah. Forgot.
SS wasn’t operative at the time Paul wrote 2 Tim.3:17.
Well, yeah per se. But there was no NT at the time of Jesus and yet unbelievers were still faulted. Why was that?
Because the preaching and teaching of Christ and the apostles, along with the signs and wonders repeatedly appealed to OT Scripture as does the NT. So it was sufficent for it times and now that the apostles are gone, we are left with an infallible record of their teaching.
One might as well argue like the pentecostals that signs and wonders are still necessary for the NT church just like infallible pseudo apostle popes of Rome are necessary. But that is anachronistic and a misunderstanding of what Scripture says about itself.
Among other things again, that it prepares the man of God for every/all good work.
But then determining the true apostolic church is a good work.
Ergo, Scripture is sufficient for that good work.
Much more it is self consistent whole that stands alone, apart and above additions to it like Rome’s traditions, Muhammed’s visions or Joseph Smith’s golden plates, all of which in principle deny Scripture even as they pretend to praise it.
LikeLike
In the parable of the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, the same tells Jesus, who has been imprisoned by the religious authorities after he returned to earth, that the perennial three temptations in the wilderness that Jesus overcame – miracle, mystery and authority – have been brought back into the organized church for the people’s good.
We have corrected Thy work and have founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority. And men rejoiced that they were again led like sheep, and that the terrible gift that had brought them such suffering, was, at last, lifted from their hearts. Were we right teaching them this? Speak! Did we not love mankind, so meekly acknowledging their feebleness, lovingly lightening their burden, and permitting their weak nature even sin with our sanction? Why hast Thou come now to hinder us? . . .
Did Fyodor know something we don’t?
CtC?
Nah, his paradigm is pre-revolutionary.
St. Karl will set him aright.
Francis is busy mopping up family business.
LikeLike
“Rome isnt more logical just because I say so” isnt compelling
What’s-the-frequency-Kenneth, neither is “the pope is infallible because Rome says so.” Eye on the shell, kids, eye on the shell.
LikeLike
loser ken, so the catechisms are infallible. What about the encyclicals. The canons of councils? Papal bulls?
With the popes talking so much, not to mention the bishops, how do you keep up? Or, why do you bishops spend so little time teaching the catechisms?
LikeLike
loser ken, so how does the magisterium know what the Bible teaches when the bishops haven’t done a lick of Hebrew or Greek since seminary (if then)? Do they really interpret the Bible or do they interpret what former bishops have interpreted (or just make up stuff like subsidiarity and solidarity — any exegesis there?)?
LikeLike
loser ken, “option 2 is off the table (no divine church no divine tradition)”
Have you heard of the third member of the Trinity? He always works with the word.
LikeLike
Jeff,
You don’t know what you are talking about here. See, democracy involves all of the people, not just some. The more one tries to limit democracy, the more one allows for smaller groups to seize power.
BTW, what is with the comment about political parties? I never denied them. In fact, I argue for more than 2 political parties. Until we as a people vote that way, nothing will change and our gov’t will be bought by those who can afford to contribute to political campaigns or are able to provide other expensive perks.
LikeLike
@dgh It is curious to compare the Athanasian creed (is this part of the infallible magisterium?) to the Balt. catechism. The infallible doctrine has changed from “no one can get to heaven without believing…” to “no one gets to heaven with out believing…unless you don’t know any better…”. The paradigm is growing as convoluted (though still logically consistent!) as the old geocentric paradigm. As long as you can add additional caveats ad infinitum, who knows what the magisterium really means…infallible indeed.
LikeLike
Lots of similarities between the RCC and our legal system. The law is what judges say it is. The RCC is what the bishops say it is (with the Pope playing the role of the Supreme Court). Not a very firm foundation when you are ultimately ruled by the opinions of fallible men (and women).
LikeLike
If the U.S. Supreme Court can conjure a right to have an abortion out of thin air the Pope can conjure a right to gay marriage. Just watch him.
Bryan will be to a liberal Pope what Paul Krugman is to liberal politicians. He has to be.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
.But Tradition tells us who the Church is and what the Church teaches! In fact, Tradition also tells us what scripture is and what scripture teaches…. So why isnt Tradition King? Your conclusion (Sola ecclesia) doesnt following from your premesis.
If tradition did this apart from the Roman Magisterium telling us what tradition is, your argument might be sound. As it is, there are vast tracks of tradition that do not interpret Matt. 16 as referring to the pope and vast tracks of tradition that do not support papal infallibility, and much more. But we’re supposed to ignore these why? Because the Roman Magisterium says so.
In other words, it’s not a three legged stool. It’s a one legged stool, and that one leg is rotting very quickly.
LikeLike
Bryan has opined on Douthat here:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/ecclesial-consumerism/#comment-136023
Salient quotes are below:
When Douthat points out that “docility” to change in the Church would validate the Protestant charge of sola ecclesia Bryan responds,
Doubling-down Bryan notes,
To be fair, Bryan does insist before this statement that the Magisterium acts rationally, but one wonders how Bryan’s paradigm would ever allow for the possibility of the Church acting falsely. That does not presuppose that the Church is not what it claims to be, but it is a question of whether or not the counter-factual could ever even be entertained. Not sharing Bryan’s conviction about the RCC certainly impacts how I perceive things, but it also impacts Bryan’s perspective and I think statements like this border on fideism precisely because there is no way to falsify Bryan’s paradigm.
LikeLike
Curt,
“So if I as an individual reject power, that power will disappear? “
No, but if enough people reject power, it disappears. I think Étienne de La Boétie describes this well.
“There are two options…”
Voluntaryism proposes a third option that power be divided according to property lines. Yes, some people own more property than others, but envy is the only complaint against that problem and theft the only solution. Property only exists in the face of scarcity and its purpose is to eliminate conflict, so that sounds like a pretty good solution to me, without devolving into utopianism.
“You didn’t quite get the gist of what I was writing. There are two options: democracy or the consolidation of power. Democracy involves self-rule.”
Democracy involves majority rule, every individual must submit to the rule of the majority. I am compelled to give my power and authority in decision-making to the majority in voting.
“Also, the idea of democracy is that the interests of many are put in the same pot so that, hopefully, legislation would be more balanced than favoring special interests like it does today. ”
That’s a low bar.
“In addition, power can be exercised for other means than self-interest.”
This is utopian because, as you say, love of money rules the world. There isn’t a political mechanism to change a man’s heart.
In this democracy, do I have the power to opt out? If not, it doesn’t sound as though I have much power. I’d suggest that whoever compels me to opt-in is the person in power over me. Also, do I have to vote according to the narrow views of a majority of people? As you say later, the world is run by the love of money, so my vote will have to be amongst options that are created by the world. That doesn’t sound like much of a choice.
“And for those who are too caught up in intramural doctrinal battles and culture wars, the love of money is what is ruling most of the world. Considering the scriptural warnings against such a love, us Christian bloggers are discussing what?”
Yes, love of money rules most of the world, which is why you must have a system in place that uses greed for the benefit of others. There is no political solution for the love of money itself. Do you think that socialism will somehow destroy the love of money?
Again, capitalism turns the outcome of greed into civic virtue without changing a man’s heart. Socialism turns civic virtue into greed.
LikeLike
Brandon – Not sharing Bryan’s conviction about the RCC certainly impacts how I perceive things, but it also impacts Bryan’s perspective and I think statements like this border on fideism precisely because there is no way to falsify Bryan’s paradigm.
Erik – Ding, ding, ding.
This is why I say that Bryan has to, and will, rationalize WHATEVER the Pope does. Even if he has private doubts he will never, ever, air them in public. He absolutely can not and save face.
LikeLike
In other news, The University of Chicago Press has brought three of Peter DeVries’ books back into print – “Reuben, Reuben”, “The Tunnel of Love”, and “Without a Stitch in Time”. His early stuff is really hard to come by.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_De_Vries
LikeLike
Brandon, great job finding that. Thanks.
LikeLike
“Yes, love of money rules most of the world, which is why you must have a system in place that uses greed for the benefit of others. There is no political solution for the love of money itself. Do you think that socialism will somehow destroy the love of money?”
That reminded me of Friedman’s knockdown of Donahue – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
LikeLike
Eric,
The entire edifice for the truth of Roman Catholicism is supposed to be the Motives of Credibility — things outside of Roman Catholic belief that point to the church and show her to be true. Examine these Motives sometime and ask yourself how rock solid these “proofs” for someone who hasn’t previously believed Catholicism to be true.
They’re not credible at all unless you are predisposed to assume Rome is true. It’s a vicious circle. Rome tells you what the church Jesus founded should look like and voila it’s Rome as long as you accept Rome’s definition and qualifications of holiness, history, tradition, unity, etc. Ignore what Rome tells you to ignore and Rome wins. Brilliant.
LikeLike
For my money Brandon, the killer quote has got to be:
And if the response is that the present “authentic Magisterium” contradicts (or could contradict) the Tradition, the answer is that the impossibility of such a contradiction is precisely part of the Tradition. Part of the doctrine of the Catholic faith is that we will never be put in a situation in which we have to choose between fidelity to the deposit of the faith on the one hand, and fidelity to the authentic Magisterium on the other hand. Any position or admonition presupposing that we may have to choose between these itself departs from Catholic doctrine.
Blimey, the poor lad is being strangled on the entrails of his own argument. Somebody put him out of his misery, please.
(S)tatements like this border on fideism precisely because there is no way to falsify Bryan’s paradigm.
Yep. That’s all we’ve seen here with the assumptions and assertions for the infallibility of the magisterium. The question begging not only never ends, it doesn’t/can’t register with those who keep floating the same old in the discussion.
The Roman church is The Church Christ founded because there must be a visible church and it must be infallible, because these are reasonable things to expect from a church that God founded to accomplish his purposes. I mean, whoever heard of a church founded by . . . . Does B&C ever say anything at bottom different? I’ve never heard it. They know what they are looking for, because it appears (philosophically) reasonable to them. That’s the joint in the harness, if not straitjacket, the faithful have pulled over their head.
That these qualities could possibly be signs or attributes of the true church along with others, contingent on what the infallible self interpreting and sufficient Scripture says about the church – which the same Word calls into being and sustains – is quite a different matter. But surprise of surprise, that has been peremptorily ruled out from the get go. (
Only whites are racist Only capitalists are greedyOnly prots are biased.)Because Scripture has to include Sacred Tradition and the pope has the magisterium chrism just like the Apostles.
Repeat after me . . . Because. . . .
But if blind faith is not a biblical faith, it still is a sweet gig though, if you buy in. One can get lost climbing around on the esoteric monkey bars of ontology, epistemology or church history without ever realizing you are still in a cage.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Replace every use of the term ‘Church’ and ‘Magisterium’ in that quoted paragraph, with the word ‘Jesus,’ and you would affirm it, and wouldn’t call it fideism. Likewise, replace every use of the term ‘Church’ and ‘Magisterium’ in that quoted paragraph, with the word ‘Scripture,’ and you would affirm it, and wouldn’t call it fideism. Hence, you don’t call it fideism when you do it, and that is the fallacy of special pleading. Rather, you call it ‘fideism’ only when the authority in question isn’t one you recognize as divine. And that presupposes precisely what is in question between Protestants and Catholics, and thus is the fallacy of begging the question.
As for why Catholic faith is not fideistic, I’d be glad to discuss that under the motives of credibility thread.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
To whom it may concern:
One, there’s faith and then there’s a biblical faith.
Two, there’s a faith contra Scripture, reason and history and then there’s a faith in Scripture in accord with reason and history.
Three, among other things, if romanism does not attempt to separate Christ from Scripture, it adds unto Scripture or things beside it which for all practical purposes amounts to a contradiction of Scripture and Christ. (The Magisterium, Mohammed and Mormonism all profess to reverence Scripture even as they add unto it and essentially supplant it.)
Four, B&C are in search of a justification for knowledge. B&C say they have found it in the magisterium. But prots can’t know infallible truth/knowledge because they are not in (blind/implicit faith) submission to the magisterium which can never contradict the truth, because the truth is that the magisterium is infallible/can never contradict the truth.
But we are supposed to recognize the infallible truth of what B&C propose as a self appointed and fallible promoters of the infallible magisterium. Barring that contradiction, B&C attempt to persuade us with motives/methods of epistemological uncertainty, i.e. the infamous Motives of Credibility. But credibility is not certainty of the type B&C will demand from prots regarding Scripture.
Five, Rome sets itself in judgement over Scripture (and history) by combining/redefining Scripture to include history/tradition. And then we’re off to the races. Between Voltaire’s nose of wax, Pope Pinnochio and the Donation of Constantine, it’s anybody’s guess.
Six, Rome is the last word, not the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.
But if Rome teaches all that is necessary to be saved is to believe/nominally affirm whatever the church believes – whatever that is – then connect the dots. If saving faith for Rome is not an empty faith, it is an ignorant one, arguably a faith in “faith”.
I’ll settle with that for a working definition of fideism.
LikeLike
Bryan,
But your church explicitly condemns fideism. Does ours?
“And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” – Hebrews 11:6
LikeLike
Look at Belgic 2, 3, 5, & 7 on Scripture. Rather fideistic.
http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession
The problem with grounding faith in the Motives of Credibility (in order to avoid accusations of fideism) is that (1) They’re frankly not overwhelmingly persuasive and (2) You’ve placed something higher than your object of faith — The Roman Catholic Church.
Rather than staking everything on the Church you’ve staked everything on supposedly objective evidence for the Church being who she says she is.
It boils down to rationalism.
LikeLike
Back to Douthat’s article, the really refreshing thing would be for Called to Communion to admit something along the lines of:
(1) “We really don’t understand what the Pope (and/or bishops) are doing here and indeed believe that they may be making serious mistakes”
but
(2) “This does not shake our faith, however, because we know that Popes and bishops have made serious mistakes in the past and probably will again. We fully believe the Holy Spirit will straighten things out over time, even though this straightening out may not occur in our lifetimes.”
This is the approach that Kenneth takes, and its virtue is that it is at least candid.
As it is, Called to Communion comes off like a Soviet era “Pravda” and not an place for objective reflection and debate.
LikeLike
On Bryan, Lawrence Feingold, and the Motives of Credibility:
http://literatecomments.com/?s=lawrence+feingold&submit=Search
LikeLike
Erik,
.This does not shake our faith, however, because we know that Popes and bishops have made serious mistakes in the past and probably will again. We fully believe the Holy Spirit will straighten things out over time, even though this straightening out may not occur in our lifetimes.
It does make one wonder why someone like Douthat remains RC. I mean, this is in essence a Protestant epistemology: “The Holy Spirit will straighten things out over time.” Once you admit that there may be error in the present among the Magisterium, there goes Cletus’ infallible articles of faith.
What is fascinating is that Douthat is allowed to hold this position and take the Eucharist when it undercuts what the CTC folk see as the defining superior attribute of Romanism—and they can take the Eucharist to. What’s it take for the Magisterium to defend itself? A severe loss of market share?
The longer I talk to RCs and the more I see people like Douthat, there seems to be only one thing that unites them all—RC is really, really big, so it must be true.
LikeLike
In other news regarding the one church Christ founded, the demoted conservative really believes in the Petrine ministry, just not so much in its current incarnation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/02/cardinal-burke-pope-francis_n_6083940.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
How many thousands of words will it take CTC to explain that Burke’s opposition to Francis is really a sign of RC unity that Protestants can’t have because it lacks the principled foundation of an infallible magisterium?
LikeLike
Robert,
The answer lies in the fact that the vast majority of Roman Catholics do not come to Catholicism in the manner that Bryan and the Callers do — through an overwhelming existential need for paradigmatic certainty. They’re just born into it and make the best of it as it really is.
William F. Buckley was a good example of a cradle who also happened to be an intellectual and is the ideological godfather of Douthat (although Buckley was rich enough and stubborn enough to provide himself and his domestic staff a weekly Latin mass).
Sean can tell you a lot about earthy Catholicism as opposed to egghead Catholicism.
LikeLike
What is fascinating is that Douthat is allowed to hold this position and take the Eucharist when it undercuts what the CTC folk see as the defining superior attribute of Romanism—and they can take the Eucharist to.
Robt. one, CtC is not the magisterium and therefore infallible, so it’s “possible” that they could be confused about the defining characteristic of Romanism. Possible, but not very likely or ahem, credible. But implicit faith dictates that all you have to do is believe; how the magisterium resolves anything is their business, not little grasshopper’s.
Two, the name is everything. As long as everybody is (nominally) a “Catholic”, there is no problem. Other than that your uncharitable rationalistic prot unbelief/fideism/skepticism is showing.
Three, the genius of Romanism is essentially what is known as the True Believer syndrome. No matter what incredible contortions it takes to swallow what the magisterium comes up with, it can and will be done/we will say we believe it even as we are choking.
Besides it will all come out in
the washpurgatory anyway.IOW the more things change, the more they resemble the same.
2 Thess. 2:10-12 . . . because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
LikeLike
Robert,
“It does make one wonder why someone like Douthat remains RC. I mean, this is in essence a Protestant epistemology: “The Holy Spirit will straighten things out over time.” Once you admit that there may be error in the present among the Magisterium, there goes Cletus’ infallible articles of faith.”
How in the world is faith in divine guidance of the Magisterium essentially Protestant epistemology? Opposing views amongst bishops are not news to RCs – look at the proceedings of any ecumenical council of the past. But somehow debate and posturing within a preliminary synod – not even on par with those – is supposed to strike fear and anxiety in the heart of RCs? So no, the view that RCism can actually identify and define infallible articles of faith hasn’t vanished.
LikeLike
David Anders wrote a a very nice piece over at CtC.
The quote of the article is Some would have you think that the Church’s teaching today is unclear, but this is absurd.
Indeed. Still waiting on a response to my question… If catholic teaching is so obscure…. how is that RC Sproul, Horton, Geisler, and James White can all recite it so nicely? Hmmmm……
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Funny, I heard “the church” herself, by way of one of her bishops, claiming to be creating the confusion that this article by Darryl is about:
Absurd indeed.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Indeed. Still waiting on a response to my question… If catholic teaching is so obscure…. how is that RC Sproul, Horton, Geisler, and James White can all recite it so nicely? Hmmmm……
I’ve been told by some RCs that Sproul and White at least do not understand RCism (Not that I agree with the RCs’ assessment of these men.). So which is it?
RC teaching does seem rather clear—at least on some matters—if one reads it according to historical context, etc. Doing that yields a rather conservative view of Romanism. The problem, of course, is that the Magisterium doesn’t read itself this way, as the recent synod indicates. Based on how the Magisterium defines things, it seems that one can read it however one wants and remain a good RC since discipline is so hard to come by.
LikeLike
A bunch of reformed pastors agree with ex-reformed abt what RCism is all about. That proves the clarity of church doctrine? Maybe it means that if you begin with the same methodological commitments you end up in similar places. Maybe those commitments are idiosyncratic and add odds with how many RC theologians and seminarians approach the faith.
In your case, KW, the rejection of data in favor of THE PARADIGM (yuor data is made up -> I don’t trust your source-> it doesn’t matter anyway) is reminiscent of talking with a yec or socialist. Doctrinaire through and through. Not that’s there’s anything wrong with that, but it doesn’t make for a productive conversation.
Never mind that councils, cathechisms, and creeds disagree, never mind that 85% of your members dissent (and99% fail to live up to) “clear” teaching, never mind your prominent scholars contradict one another on “settled” issues…it is all clear. Or maybe there’s a problem with the paradigm. ..
LikeLike
loser ken, as to clarity, do Protestants go to hell? If no salvation exists outside the church, am I toast?
And what about Muslims?
And even if the teachings are clear, does the hierarchy believe it? I mean, the index of books was a sign that these guys were worried about souls and the dangers that might come to believers trying to make it to glory. But is that concern still there? Is it clear when Francis basically blesses everyone and when the church is more concerned about either libertarianism or family life?
LikeLike
Brandon, reminiscent of Ignatius of Loyola: “What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines.”
So much for logic.
And so much for loser Ken and foxy lady’s claims that the church can’t change doctrine, as if doctrine somehow is a transcendent truth that the magisterium teaches and defends. Whatever the magisterium does is true. Change? Depends on what “change” means.
LikeLike
Cletus,
How in the world is faith in divine guidance of the Magisterium essentially Protestant epistemology?
That part isn’t essentially RC or Protestant, for Protestants believe in divine guidance for the church. His name is the Holy Spirit.
Opposing views amongst bishops are not news to RCs – look at the proceedings of any ecumenical council of the past. But somehow debate and posturing within a preliminary synod – not even on par with those – is supposed to strike fear and anxiety in the heart of RCs? So no, the view that RCism can actually identify and define infallible articles of faith hasn’t vanished.
Actually, Douthat seems rather concerned that Francis et al might get it wrong or at least lead the church into grave error for a time but that Providence will nonetheless work it all out. That’s Protestant epistemology, not your particular version of “Rome is right whenever Rome says it is right because Rome says it is right, and if you think Rome has changed it is because you aren’t allowing Rome today to tell us what Rome clearly meant 1,500 years ago even though an honest reading shows that what Rome says today isn’t what Rome said in centuries past.”
It doesn’t strike fear and anxiety into the hearts of those of the CTC sort because they’ve invested themselves in only one infallible truth and that is that they have infallibly discerned that Rome is infallible. Thus Bryan will continue to write 10,000 word essays that boil down to “no amount of evidence can falsify my infallible interpretation of Rome.” As Erik said, it has to. You all have put too much investment in this certainty that you think you have. Those who don’t go Bryan’s route will become atheists. We’ve seen this before.
LikeLike
It’s an interesting twist on the ‘audacity of the pope’ that when the pope is fomenting the discord and disunity his uniquely supreme charism is pushed aside in favor of older and/or lesser(bishops, laity-conciliar even) expressions of the charism. This whole paradigm argument is quite the leaky boat. I prefer my father’s observance; we go to mass and then brunch with our friends. No discussions of the bishop’s latest blast or papal encyclical or even synodical discussion. They’ve got enough just managing the unity and uprightness(literally) of their octogenarian RC cabal. They’re unfamiliar with Bryan.
LikeLike
Clete,
It’s more the topic of the Synod that is scary.
These things are negotiable?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The problem is, the Protestants you cite are apparently more clear on what RC teaching is than your own bishops.
These Protestants look back, the bishops are on the cutting edge and on the front lines.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The problem you have is that you and the Callers want to lift the opinion of a David Anders (who?) or a Bryan Cross (who?) up to the same level as that of ordained Bishops.
Cite Cardinal Burke, not David Anders.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/02/cardinal-burke-pope-francis_n_6083940.html
Look at the Facebook debate below the article. Catholics of varying opinions lining up behind bishops of varying opinions. You or Callers commenting would just be other lay opinions.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Also, per Bryan, how could Sproul, White, et. al. understand Catholicism if they are not bowing the knee and giving assent?
Whenever we question any point of Catholic doctrine Bryan accuses us of some logical fallacy. Obviously we don’t understand.
LikeLike
So the scriptures aren’t perspicuous requiring magisterial charism, even lay charism, as interpretive grid expressed in the deposit of faith with the subsequent pegging of charism gravity(thinking along with the church) until the guy and guys(synod) with the magisterial ordination start ‘thinking-interpreting’ in a direction which is not in accord with your lay charism and then it’s a free for all as your lay charism starts jumping steps up the ladder buttressed by the occasional like minded bishop who gives credibility to your lay charism even though it’s NOT IN LINE with the ‘movement of God’ among the magisterium who is in accord with papal audacity…..That there is some unity and certainty, by goodness.
LikeLike
Robert – It doesn’t strike fear and anxiety into the hearts of those of the CTC sort because they’ve invested themselves in only one infallible truth and that is that they have infallibly discerned that Rome is infallible. Thus Bryan will continue to write 10,000 word essays that boil down to “no amount of evidence can falsify my infallible interpretation of Rome.” As Erik said, it has to. You all have put too much investment in this certainty that you think you have. Those who don’t go Bryan’s route will become atheists. We’ve seen this before.
Erik – It’s interesting to note the differing trajectories of Bryan & Jason. Bryan solidified his commitment by getting paid for being a Catholic — he’s a philosophy professor at a Catholic College. Jason is selling cars. This isn’t putting Jason down, I think he can be a really good car salesman. It does show why Jason can chill on the Protestant-targeting apologetics, though, while Bryan continues on, full regalia. It’s his job. Even if he had doubts, inertia will keep him going, as it does all of us who are in a profession. The pay and benefits are too good to start over.
LikeLike
Irony that only Rome could love, the writer of “Gospel Amnesia” goes RCC from Calvinism.
http://t.co/TNuAPJbdd8
LikeLike
sean, now there’s a call to communion — worship service and then brunch, in the memorable words of some Simpsons’ episode: “It’s not quite breakfast, it’s not quite lunch, but it comes with a slice of canteloupe at the end.”
LikeLike
Erik,
“It’s more the topic of the Synod that is scary.
These things are negotiable?”
How best to effectively pastor to certain segments of RCs is obviously negotiable.
Darryl,
“Brandon, reminiscent of Ignatius of Loyola: “What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines.”
So much for logic.”
Yeah so much for Sproul and his logic:
“However, if something can be shown to be definitively taught in the Bible without questioning, and somebody gives me a theory from natural revelation—that they think is based off of natural revelation—that contradicts the Word of God, I’m going to stand with the Word of God a hundred times out of a hundred. But again I have to repeat, I could have been a mistaken interpreter of the Word of God.”
Robert,
“That part isn’t essentially RC or Protestant, for Protestants believe in divine guidance for the church. His name is the Holy Spirit. ”
Why doesn’t he guide the Protestant church into recognizing infallible articles of faith? Is semper reformanda part of guidance?
“Actually, Douthat seems rather concerned that Francis et al might get it wrong or at least lead the church into grave error for a time but that Providence will nonetheless work it all out. That’s Protestant epistemology”
Yep – if Rome said tomorrow the Assumption didn’t happen or the Eucharist is just bread or that ssm is ordained by God, that would be Protestant epistemology and semper reformanda. Faith that such won’t happen is not Protestant epistemology.
“You all have put too much investment in this certainty that you think you have. Those who don’t go Bryan’s route will become atheists. We’ve seen this before.”
Protestants have put too much investment in this certainty of Scriptural inerrancy and inspiration that you think you have. Those who don’t go the inerrancy route will become liberals or atheists. We’ve seen this before.
LikeLike
foxy lady, impressive how you have Sproul memorized. He’s in your head.
LikeLike
To be fair – and the Mudster is all about fair – is Catholic Crossism pretty much like Presbyterian VanTilianism? I’d pay for front row seats to see a die-hard P&R presupp argue with RC Cross. Of course, I’d fall asleep in about 5 minutes but I’d be sleeping in the front row.
LikeLike
MG, as in paradigm is to Catholic Crossism what worldview is to Reformed VanTilianism? Golf clap, old man, golf clap. I agree, but only because I think you’re right.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Why doesn’t he guide the Protestant church into recognizing infallible articles of faith? Is semper reformanda part of guidance?
Because the Holy Spirit doesn’t give men his job. What you don’t seem to get is that the most jarring part of your proposal is the idea that the church is infallible whenever it says it is infallible. All confessional Protestants that I know of believe that the church has taught at least some things without error. You just think having someone claim it is infallible makes it so. No wonder Rome is universalistic these days. Lots of people claim to be infallible.
Yep – if Rome said tomorrow the Assumption didn’t happen or the Eucharist is just bread or that ssm is ordained by God, that would be Protestant epistemology and semper reformanda. Faith that such won’t happen is not Protestant epistemology.
That’s because Protestant epistemology isn’t blind fideism. As it is, what happens with Rome is that the few RCs who take Rome’s traditional claims with any seriousness write billions of words to prove that change isn’t change. Most of the rest of the RCs, including the Magisterium just don’t care.
Protestants have put too much investment in this certainty of Scriptural inerrancy and inspiration that you think you have. Those who don’t go the inerrancy route will become liberals or atheists. We’ve seen this before.
Protestants don’t have to reconcile and indeterminate number of conflicting traditional statements etc. Much easier to defend biblical inerrancy.
LikeLike
Z, I try to be off-putting so no one agrees with me based on my charm. It’s tough work, but integrity demands it.
LikeLike
“paradigm is to Catholic Crossism what worldview is to Reformed VanTilianism.”
Z, I bet you got good scores on your SAT’s.
LikeLike
Bryan,
*If* the sort of difficulties in Scripture were equivalent to those in the RCC, then the equivalence of the “problems” in the teachings of Scripture or Jesus and the “problems” in the RCC would be valid.
For example, if Jesus said “You cannot be divorced and re-married and then receive the Eucharist,” and then in the same sense, Jesus said, “You can be divorced and re-married and receive the Eucharist” then I would abandon the notion that Jesus was infallible. Thankfully Christians are not faced with such dilemmas (though I admit there are certainly difficult things that Christians must address).
The reason I believe that your position borders on fideism is precisely because in the face of such change you are saying,
We’re not talking about abstractions, we’re talking about Francis sending delegates who want to change the teaching of the Church. We’re talking about Francis who has in one case allowed a divorced and remarried woman to receive the Eucharist in Brazil. We’re talking about more and more progressive bishops being given a platform with welling support from the laity.
Douthat is alarmed because the proposed changes and new direction are wavering close to being catastrophically contradictory. The problem that Douthat and many others are concerned about is not that they don’t understand the change, rather they understand precisely what such a change would mean. That’s why Douthat cites the Dominican paper, cited in the comments above, to illustrate that this is not an issue of “understanding.”
I don’t blame either your or Douthat for remaining in Rome at this time, but I find Douthat refreshing because he acknowledges that this is a difficult and confusing time. At CtC we only hear that everything occurring is “consistent with everything we’ve argued.” One approach is compelling even if one ultimately disagrees, the other is not.
LikeLike
But Bryan, in insisting on the use of the Motives of Credibility, in not so much a Van Tilian as he is an evidentialist.
Imagine if, instead of handing out Bibles, the Gideons handed out “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”.
Maybe Bryan can type up the Motives and hand them out in downtown Cedar Rapids.*
* When my wife was a small girl she was listening to the evening news in Des Moines. The broadcaster said something about Cedar Rapids and my wife asked, “Did that man say something about Peter Rabbit?”
I do agree that Bryan strays into Van Tilian territory with talk of superior paradigms.
LikeLike
Robert – Protestants don’t have to reconcile and indeterminate number of conflicting traditional statements etc. Much easier to defend biblical inerrancy.
Erik – We also don’t have to ask our kids to memorize a 3,000 question Catechism.
LikeLike
Erik, the motives are a mirage. You think they’re evidence, then you get there to take a swim and blech, it’s just more desert. With Cross it’s just an endless desert of “nothing can prove me wrong.”
LikeLike
Brandon – I don’t blame either your or Douthat for remaining in Rome at this time, but I find Douthat refreshing because he acknowledges that this is a difficult and confusing time. At CtC we only hear that everything occurring is “consistent with everything we’ve argued.” One approach is compelling even if one ultimately disagrees, the other is not.
Erik – One might even argue that one approach reeks of hubris and pride.
LikeLike
Bryan: Remain calm. All is well.
LikeLike
One interesting thing about the Motives in regard to this current discussion is that when drawing conclusions about the Church, we are to look especially at those who make frequent use of her sacraments. Part of the current discussion centers around lowering the bar on who can partake of the Eucharist. This causes a problem because now we are not only looking at the “best Catholics” in determining the validity of the Church, but at the Catholics who are merely squeaking by. Not so glorious, not so convincing.
If the Sacrament of marriage is watered down to put cohabiting couples and gay couples on somewhat equal footing, the problem repeats.
LikeLike
Brandon,
None of what you said above shows either that my position is fideistic, or that your position avoids the two fallacies I pointed out.
Which of those three things do you think is incompatible with something I’ve said? (If none, then why even bring it up as if it is somehow evidence that something I’ve said is false?) Each of those three things being true is fully compatible with everything I’ve said being true.
Indeed he is alarmed. But the point in question isn’t whether Douthat is alarmed. Nor does Douthat being alarmed entail that any Catholic who is not alarmed is a fideist. Nor does Douthat being alarmed falsify anything we’ve said. (If you disagree, you’ll need to show how from Douthat being alarmed it follows that something we’ve said is not true.)
Understanding what such a change would mean" and citing the Dominican paper are both fully compatible with everything I’ve said being true, and are thus red herrings. If you disagree, then you'll need to explain how Douthat being aware of the Dominican paper is somehow incompatible with something I said, or somehow supports your claim that my position is fideistic.
If what we were doing is attempting to say things that are “refreshing” and “compelling,” you’d have a point. But we’re about is stating the truth. And just because something is not “refreshing” or “compelling” does not change it from truth to non-truth. So long as you keep judging what we say by criteria other than truth (i.e. criteria such as “refreshing” or “compelling”), you’ll miss the entire point of what we’re doing, because you’ll be engaged in an entirely different activity (i.e. the formation of speech that is refreshing or compelling, but not necessarily true).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Chortles,
At times like this the Callers need only to think back to their initiation ceremony for sustenance:
LikeLike
Bryan,
Are you thinking Douthat is alarmed?
LikeLike
Bryan,
That was a joke.
Douthat being alarmed is not so much about falsifying anything you’ve said. It’s about casting light on all that you are not saying. The Synod was big news in the Roman Catholic world and Catholics are lining up on all sides. Like most controversial topics within Catholicism, however, you guys remain on the sidelines.
One article that I can find on the Priest sex abuse scandal — and that by Jeremy Tate. A nice guy, but by no means your heaviest hitter.
LikeLike
Erik,
There has been abuse inside the church and it is horrible, more horrible that it was done by men who profess Christ, BUT those terrible instances as well as there being priests at the synod who might like the Church to declare that same sex sexual practice is not sin, does not change the truth that the former issue is a sin and the latter issue is a desire to see a sin be declared not a sin, because men don’t desire sound doctrine but want teachers to tell them what their itching ears desire. In neither case, however, can the church change what is immoral about those things that are, well, immoral.
What I said about the priests who attend the synod is purely hypothetical, because I don’t know for a fact what anyone’s heart may truly want, but I know that the Holy Spirit will guide the outcome. This is what it means to have The Church.
LikeLike
Bryan,
Ditto to what Erik said.
One person recognizes the current trajectory and is unnerved by it. The other writes an article critical of that person and writes that if the Church teaches something different than our own understanding we are still called to submit.
The reason that this *appears* fideistic is because the proposed change would amount to a contradiction, but your response encourages people to come to a deeper understanding of the Magisterium rather than recognize it for the contradiction that it is. Given that Douthat’s is writing about a particular case and a particular (unnerving) trajectory your response to Douthat would presumably be about the same set of circumstances. Douthat says that some form of rebellion may be necessary if the doctrine changes. You, on the other hand, call us to a deeper understanding of the Magisterium’s teaching, which, if such a change occurred, would be a contradiction.
Perhaps you would like to argue, contra the Dominican authors, that such a change would not be a change in doctrine as one way to respond to such a claim? In any event, I’m describing a prima facie reading of your material and I am *not* saying that it necessarily entails fideism–but given the way in which your response has been delivered, it seems to border on fideism.
LikeLike
Brandon,
When you have time would you please address more fully what you stated?
“…….proposed change would amount to a contradiction,….”
What is the proposed change? I haven’t read about any changes.
LikeLike
Susan,
Go back and re-read the Douthat article and particularly to the Dominican paper wherein some specific proposals are discussed.
LikeLike
@Kenneth Winsmann
You are right to be critical of Erik on this point but “Jason and the Callers” to use DgH’s language have consistently failed to make actual arguments that hold up to inquiry. The Catholic apologetic is a series of unsupported assertions which ignore clear historical facts that contradict those assertions. Virtually every single place you look for evidence you see precisely the opposite of what you would expect were the Catholic version of history true.
I can construct an argument like:
1) The sky is orange
2) Orange skies always come from the Purkinje effect like on Mars.
C — Therefore earth has lots of dust high in its atmosphere.
Hey that’s an argument. It just happens to have no basis in reality.
And then ignore when someone points out:
1′) The sky is blue
2′) There is more than one reason a sky can be orange
2b) There are other reasons a sky can be orange than light shifts from dust.
Yes CtC is an argument. It just isn’t a remotely plausible one. A good argument starts with plausible facts. What does the documentary say? What does the archeological record say? What does the historical record say? It deconstructs the various claimants looking at them skeptically and reconstructs based on the evidence.
Otherwise what you have is a series of assertions in critical parts of the arguments that are either contradicted by the facts or often completely unsupported by facts. CtC has been around for years now. Series credible counter claims have been raised and not addressed. Address them. Then you get to talk about other people not having arguments.
LikeLike
Susan, but here’s another angle. What you say is true enough, namely that bad behavior on the part of a teacher doesn’t negate the teaching. But it does undermine credibility. And so with all the sexual scandal plaguing the RCC, wouldn’t prudence and humility sort of demand that she step back from pontificating to the wider world on sexual mores one way or another? But my guess is that the Roman mind can’t easily compute that notion, given that she is Thee Church That Jesus Christ Founded and thus has a pious duty to tell the world what’s what. But for all the effort to sell us on his humility, it sure would go a lot further for Francis to refrain from photo ops with the sick and instead dial down the sex talk until his own house gets in moral order.
LikeLike
But we’re about is stating the truth. And just because something is not “refreshing” or “compelling” does not change it from truth to non-truth. So long as you keep judging what we say by criteria other than truth (i.e. criteria such as “refreshing” or “compelling”), you’ll miss the entire point of what we’re doing, because you’ll be engaged in an entirely different activity (i.e. the formation of speech that is refreshing or compelling, but not necessarily true).
Yup, you betcha. We’re all over that. The TRUTH.
Which is nothing you say or entail can falsify what we’ve said because/what we have said is the truth. (You got a better way to parody a parody . . . . )
The real problem is Bryan is guilty as charged because there’s no way to argue reasonably for the reasonableness of his Roman faith. Ergo, he’s a fideist.
If the magisterium can never contradict the Deposit of Faith – and it can’t – and said DoF includes both Scripture and Tradition ( if not that Scripture is Tradition), problemo numero uno is that the Authoritative Apostolic Oral Traditions have been Lost For Some Time Now.
Which is to say prots at least have an objective standard with Sola Scriptura to start with when it comes to arguing reasonably for their faith.
Rome? Not so much. When part of the Deposit is missing or gone AWOL, good luck with reasoning about an unknown faith. Particularly when the unknown is in general what supports your distinctive doctrines on the papacy, mariolatry, purgatory etc.
But that’s the beauty of Rome’s Implicit Faith
in stuff like the nonexistent, but monolithic and unanimous consent of the early church fathers on the papacy, mariolatry, purgatory etc.We believe it because we nominally believe whatever it is and nothing you can say entails the contrary to or falsifies our question begging, sticks and stones performatively notwithstanding.
At least Mr. Cross makes no bones about his hypocrisy. It’s all pretty straight forward.
Guess the bones must not be apostolic after all then.
LikeLike
Thanks Erik for always keepin’ it real at OLTS. Of all of us, I think you need that the most. Your bringing up my giants up pulled even me
away from my golf game andonto this thread. I need to go check your epic movie script for grumpy calvinism with the entire cast of characters over the past few years, make sure I’m not forgetting anyone. To be sure, this rolling stone has collected a few moreclumps of moss, hello Gregcharacters since our last 500+ comment thread. I should take up smoking and scratch my cat’s neck a few extra times tonight after work, to let him know he’s loved, to mark this occasion.PS the next time CtC gets a wild thread like this one with such an all star cast of characters,
be sure to pull me once again away from the greenlet me and Muddy continue to sleep in, yo (emoticon).sorry Darryl, couldn’t resist the tempatation to go all meta on us chumps (i.e. your fans). now back to
strikerBob or whomever else wants up to the tee…Fore!!!LikeLike
FWIW on Francis from a guy with no skin in the game. I think you can make a case from tradition that weakens the hetro-sexual marriage for life stand. There is a tremendous amount of Catholic (and pre-Catholic) teaching on how the act of sex permanently and irreconcilably damages one’s relationship with God. Sex permanently lowers one’s spiritual state and that the ultimately the most holy states are achieved via. living in unity with those of the same sex. Mostly the pro-family/pro-sex theme in Catholic theology came in reaction to Protestantism’s pro-family/pro-sex agenda. It is rather recent by Catholic standards.
Going back to the more traditional Catholic view that there are 3 genders: sexual men, sexual women and virgins allows for a much more pro-homosexual theology. Avoiding the loss of virginity becomes a huge benefit and those who have done so in a different state. The rules don’t apply in the same way. From there you can back this up a bit to the chaste. (sorry to be a bit graphic here) Male homosexuality involving orgasm… there is going to be no way to get around this. But with lesbians there is a lot of ambiguity in the record. I think enough. So you solve the problem for everyone except for male homosexualities that have had more than 0 orgasms inside a women.
As far as shacking up. The church traditionally did have a whole theology of concubinage. We first need to define some terms as they were used for the reader. There are four classes of woman a man might have sexual relations with:
1) A wife is a woman legal married in a church approved ceremony who lives with a man and shares his bed
2) A concubine is a woman who voluntarily lives with a man in a consensual sexual relationship. This relationship can be dissolved at any time by either party (i.e. “shacking up”)
3) A prostitute is a woman who maintains a separate residence and trades sex for money on a per incident basis.
4) A mistress is a long term sex partner and companion that maintains a residence separate from her lover.
One can see immediately that the status of the woman depended primarily on her rights with respect to the household. A wife was entitled to live in the household, a concubine lived there by choice (essentially the same relationship an adult son would have).
The church has always held that relations of types 3-4 were prohibited under the laws against fornication and sometimes adultery — with the possible exception of 4 between a widow and a widower which many churches looked leniently upon . The church however given the depressing state of marriage was supportive of concubinage. They interpreted Genesis 21:9-14 allowing for a sexual relationship with no claim to property.
In the year 400 Council of Toledo ruled that having no wife but a concubine instead of a wife is not grounds for excommunication. However having wife and a concubine was an excommunicating offense. That is they recognized the two as an “either or” choice.
____
That solves the living together issue. Finally we have the divorced and remarried. I think one could argue that since the wife voluntarily left the previous marriage it wasn’t a marriage but a relationship of concubinage. Stretch yes. Completely unsupported by tradition, no.
The downside of course is that to preach this message they need to go back to a more hostile to sex theology, since that’s what they are going to be leaning on:
* But she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Do you think there is no difference between one who spends her time in prayer and fasting, and one who must, at her husband’s approach, make up her countenance, walk with mincing gait, and feign a show of endearment?
* Marriage replenishes the earth, virginity fills Paradise.
* Marriage is the work by which it is possible for a female having lost God’s grace through fornication to regain it
etc..
LikeLike
Zrim,
The Church’s teaching exists external to the people who practice it positively, or oppose it knowingly or invisibly,or fail to to do it altogether.
But your right, bad behavior by some doesn’t negate the Church’s teaching( truth must exist), and yes, every person has to get their own house in order but they can still call immoral behavior, immoral behavior regardless.
LikeLike
CD-Host,
Thanks. I think…
LikeLike
Called to Communion, being the “Leave it to Beaver” of the Roman Catholic apologetics world, is not going to touch any of that with a ten foot pole.
Although if the Pope says we should all start swinging, Bryan would presumably write an article soon thereafter in defense of swinging.
LikeLike
Susan,
Read the Motives of Credibility though. One of the things we’re supposed to look at to glean the truth of Catholicism is Catholics, especially those who have made regular use of the sacraments. You can’t have it both ways.
LikeLike
What Called to Communion is, flat out, is a propaganda site. That’s o.k. It’s a free country. If you go to the website of the National Association of Realtors, guess what you’re going to find? — good things being said about Realtors.
What Bryan can’t do with a straight face, though, is try to present it as a place that is furthering fair-minded ecumenism – not with that draconian comment screening going on.
You can’t go to the National Association of Realtors site and say bad things about Realtors. You can’t go to CTC and say bad things about the Pope. It is what it is.
And all this “you’ve never refuted anything we’ve said” is bogus when they won’t honestly give people the opportunity. Plus, most religious claims that are not anchored in time and space are not refutable. Prove that Joseph Smith didn’t receive those golden plates and that they were not taken back up. Go ahead, prove it! Brian was in biochemistry. He knows this.
LikeLike
CD-Host – ” From there you can back this up a bit to the chaste. (sorry to be a bit graphic here) Male homosexuality involving orgasm… there is going to be no way to get around this. But with lesbians there is a lot of ambiguity in the record. I think enough. So you solve the problem for everyone except for male homosexualities that have had more than 0 orgasms inside a women.”
Erik – And this is at 4:44 in the afternoon! You should see CD-Host when he gets a few drinks in him.
This may be the post of the year.
LikeLike
Erik,
“– not with that draconian comment screening going on…when they won’t honestly give people the opportunity.”
The one that just let your and Darryl’s comments through right? The one that gave Brandon the opportunity to write a full article to give his best shot? Those duplicitous Callers – always hiding something.
LikeLike
@Erik —
1) He ran 3 miles with them. Given the density of writing so that he could read them, and even minimal thinness using today’s best technology they would weigh about 200lbs. Even if we are generous and assume 100lbs you think he ran 3 miles quickly with 100lbs in a sack?
2) They clanked when his wife touched them. Gold doesn’t clank.
Should I keep going?
LikeLike
@Cletus van Damme
I was censored and mistreated after being specifically invited to address a topic when I had addressed it off blog. But far worse a post of mine was altered. I can understand not letting something I said through but changing something I wrote and still attributing it to me is a violation of internet ethics.
____
Jason most certainly recently banned from his site, mainly for winning arguments.
LikeLike
Clete,
I’m batting 1.000 at Old Life & probably .250 at Called to Communion on comments getting accepted. The excuses I’ve received have been voluminous.
I’m about ready to join Tom Van Dyke on the lam in my efforts to get comments through. Not really.
LikeLike
Erik,
No offense but you would clutter most of the comments with the your serial shotgunning commenting here (oh look another youtube link!) CtC is trying to keep things at least somewhat focused and reined in – even you all lost patience with Sowers and Terribulus and other fun people. So it’s not suprising a quarter of what you normally post gets through at CtC. Nevertheless your critical comment was approved from Oct 30. As was Darryl’s today. As was Robert’s series of comments from a few weeks ago. As was Brandon’s *full length article*.
CDH,
I have no idea what’s up with the comment editing in your case. Regardless, I am not sure who you are referring to that got banned recently at Jason’s site – unless you mean that Kevin guy but he was hardly winning any arguments and just full of noise and clutter – even Protestants were telling him to stop.
LikeLike
Erik,
If a man wants to become a swinger, he is doing what is right in his own eyes( there is an objective point of reference), but he also knows that he is morally wrong even if his own wife and the other couples are mutually consenting. You don’t need the Decalogue to figure out that this is wrong, but it is included in the Decalogue. This is natural law at work, and not Kant’s Categorical Imperative. But if a man feels in his heart that he loves another man in the same way that you love your wife, he can appeal neither to Natural Law, as it is understood by The Catholic Church( that rejects fideism btw and teaches Aquinas) nor to the Holy Scriptures to back up his “natural” inclinations because Scripture is explicit concerning it, as well as according with Natural Law.
Now what do you do when you are in a church whose teaching authority says that the scriptures don’t say what we, in this day and age, think it means? Is that teaching authority truly and ontologically authoritative( commissioned by Christ) if it is right on some doctrine but wrong on some doctrines? You might think contraception is fine, others might think it is wrong, and you might both think that it is just a matter of having differences of opinion and something you may never know( yet still discuss and argue about and wait for time and science to evolve on the truth or untruth of the matter), OR there might be a Church that has ontological authority.
LikeLike
@Clete
The person I was talking about getting banned from Jason’s site was me.
LikeLike
Erik, foxy lady must feel threatened by Francis. All the more need to defend Pope Bryan.
LikeLike
Susan, what do you do with priests who swing (as in, to swing)?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/watch-dancing-priests-perform-fleet-footed-4499103
LikeLike
Darryl,
I thought that was adorable. I also like Going My Way when Bing Crosby( as a priest) sings, Would You Like to Swing On a Star. 🙂 Wanted to find a youtube video, but no luck!.
LikeLike
Brandon,
What you say here presupposes that such a contradiction is possible, and, once again, that presupposes precisely what is in question, and thus begs the question. I couldn’t “encourage” people to embrace something I believe to be impossible.
Again, you are misrepresenting my position by presupposing that I think such a contradiction is not only possible, but that if it were to occur, we (Catholics) should embrace it. But, my position (and Catholic doctrine) is that a contradiction is *not* possible, as I explained in comment #50 of the “A Response to Scott Clark” thread, and in my CTC comment regarding Douthat, which you linked to earlier in this thread.
It is very easy to criticize persons publicly on the basis of mere appearances, and make one’s criticisms in the forms of mere innuendos and suggestions about seeming to “border on” x, because one doesn’t have the evidence or means to show that the persons’ position is actually x. The principle of charity, however, calls us not to go by appearances when publicly criticizing others, but to go beyond the appearances and base our public criticisms, when we make them, only on the basis of the truth, because this is what we would want others to do to us. Speech activity based only on appearances is an entirely different activity from speech activity based on and aimed at the truth. This is one of the key points of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
(Darryl, would you fix my blockquote error in my previous comment please? Sorry about that. Thanks.)
LikeLike
Darryl, you know how can you identify a gay priest, at the Vatican, at a fundraiser? Well, besides throwing a rock and seeing who it hits.
LikeLike
Susan, I’m not sure my point landed, which had to do with credibility, humility, and self-righteousness. You’re sounding like a religious righter. Try a thought experiment. If a neighbor’s son assaults your daughter and that same neighbor wants to hold to his duty to tell you how to arrange your family, doesn’t his pious advice ring a tad hollow?
LikeLike
Bryan Cross
Posted November 3, 2014 at 8:15 pm | Permalink
What you say here presupposes that such a contradiction is possible, and, once again, that presupposes precisely what is in question, and thus begs the question. I couldn’t “encourage” people to embrace something I believe to be impossible.
But the question rather is do you know it to be impossible and after that how you know. Cue tape loop blah blah blah.
Again, you are misrepresenting my position by presupposing that I think such a contradiction is not only possible, but that if it were to occur, we (Catholics) should embrace it. But, my position (and Catholic doctrine) is that a contradiction is *not* possible, as I explained in comment #50 of the “A Response to Scott Clark” thread, and in my CTC comment regarding Douthat, which you linked to earlier in this thread.
#50 . . . . . . “The claim that the Catholic Church cannot contradict her previous and present teaching would only be valid if you start with the assumption that the Catholic Church in fact is who she claims to be. For those who start with that assumption, might it not be more difficult to discern actual doctrinal contradiction if it happens?”
[Ans.] This is just a subtle ad hominem, i.e. Catholics are more likely to be blind to actual doctrinal contradictions. I recommend that we avoid all that sort of thing, because it is always so easy in this way to discredit those who disagree with us by claiming that they are blind or stupid, etc. Catholics could say the same thing to Protestants about problems with Protestant doctrines, and where would that get us? Nowhere. Trading personal attacks is worthless; they cancel each other out, and only detract from the possibility of fruitful dialogue. Hence it is better to forgo the bulverism route, and just stick to the evidence and argumentation.
More likely to be blind? How about you can count on it? This is a one way street. There is a radical skepticism that protestantism can even read Scripture at all, but nonetheless the church, which supposedly derives its authority from Scripture (redefined to include tradition as Rome defines it) thereby gets to wiggle out of any prima facia immediate inferences/contradictions with Scripture. We’ll pick just one out of the dunce hat for now, like celibacy of the clergy. And to be sure, like mariolatry or fill in the blank, the pronunciamentos from CtC are way more perspicuous than Scripture. Funny that.
It is very easy to criticize persons publicly on the basis of mere appearances, and make one’s criticisms in the forms of mere innuendos and suggestions about seeming to “border on” x, because one doesn’t have the evidence or means to show that the persons’ position is actually x. The principle of charity, however, calls us not to go by appearances when publicly criticizing others, but to go beyond the appearances and base our public criticisms, when we make them, only on the basis of the truth, because this is what we would want others to do to us. Speech activity based only on appearances is an entirely different activity from speech activity based on and aimed at the truth. This is one of the key points of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
You mean like this?
But we’re about is stating the truth. And just because something is not “refreshing” or “compelling” does not change it from truth to non-truth. So long as you keep judging what we say by criteria other than truth (i.e. criteria such as “refreshing” or “compelling”), you’ll miss the entire point of what we’re doing, because you’ll be engaged in an entirely different activity (i.e. the formation of speech that is refreshing or compelling, but not necessarily true).
But the DoctImpliFaith is Not keeping the faithful in the
cavedark? (How about purgatory? Or is it wired for flourescent bulbs?)We didn’t know and would have never guessed in a million jillion liturgy cycles.
And how come no mention of sophistry in all this?
The fact of it doesn’t lend itself to allegorizing?
A pity that.
Indeed. In the end it all comes down to “what is truth”?
But hey, no worries,
Isaiah’s got the answer: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!Ignatius’ has got the routine down cold:
” W)e ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it”.
[There blockhead quotes fixed]
LikeLike
Bryan, really. Appealing to Plato to support the magisterium?
Wow!
LikeLike
Darryl, yeah, I thought Aristotle was the forerunner to Christ?
LikeLike
Clete has lost considerable panache since his debut here. I think Francis has made him cranky. His heart just doesn’t appear to be in it any more.
LikeLike
Read that “comment 50” above that Bryan refers to. He is willing to stick his neck out on that one. I can respect that.
Now the question is, how much wiggle room is left for defining changes made as a result of this Synod as “discipline” as opposed to “doctrine”?
In a year if it becomes possible for divorced Catholics whose spouses are still alive to receive Communion have Bryan’s statements about Catholicism been falsified?
For anyone who is not following the Synod closely, it’s not over. It’s just on pause for a year.
LikeLike
To quote:
“If the Church were (per impossibile) to declare this Fall that marriage is now dissoluble, and that persons living in a second ‘marriage’ (having sexual relations with that person) while their spouse is still alive are not living in adultery, then you would know that just about everything I’ve claimed about the Catholic Church’s identity and infallibility has been falsified.”
That’s bold! BOLD!
But wait – nothing there about people living in adultery who are allowed to receive communion falsifying just about everything Bryan has claimed.
So if the church changes a “discipline” and changes their practice on how they treat adulterers with regards to communion, Bryan’s still golden? Same thing with homosexuals? Same thing with those cohabiting?
LikeLike
@Erik —
Can’t be same thing with those cohabiting since they changed discipline on this already several times. They also changed the definition of adultery. A married man having sex with a hooker until recently would be fornication not adultery.
Also for example Susan gave the example of swinging. If a man gave his wife no act of theft of his sexual property would have occurred and thus it wouldn’t have been adultery for the early church (though likely still sinful). So ironically enough the example she was giving about an unchanging teaching is a teaching that changed. This started changing earlier but it was in the mid 17th century that the doctrine stabilized to its current form that a man could not lend out his wife’s sexuality.
____
As for how they treat adulterers they have already changed the discipline considerably and multiple times.
LikeLike
Erik,
“But wait – nothing there about people living in adultery who are allowed to receive communion falsifying just about everything Bryan has claimed.”
No. It doesn’t, Erik. Not if those people who were living in adultery had a true contrition, and conversion of heart, and got married in The Church. For a sacrimental marriage and/or to be able to receive communion those people have to go be reconciled with The Church(Christ as the head) first.
LikeLike
Susan: Some 550 comments later, they might still insist they’re not obsessed with Catholicism. Hyuh.
[And with Bryan Cross. Double hyuh.]
Susan
Posted November 3, 2014 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
Erik,
“But wait – nothing there about people living in adultery who are allowed to receive communion falsifying just about everything Bryan has claimed.”
No. It doesn’t, Erik. Not if those people who were living in adultery had a true contrition, and conversion of heart, and got married in The Church. For a sacramental marriage and/or to be able to receive communion those people have to go be reconciled with The Church(Christ as the head) first.
In the real world, the sola scriptura [Protestant] Achilles Heel remains divorce and remarriage, Susan.
Hart, DarrylG, talk your way out of that.
And for all this you get a group of followers who are indistinguishable from the rest of their American mainline Protestant neighbors on gay marriage?
Your henchman “Erik Charter” just adds to the disgrace of “Presbyterianism,” which numerically in America has already gone gay. The Catholic Church has not, and despite your protestations, you know it never will.
LikeLike
No, Erik — it’s Tom who’s losing his chops, playing tired licks with decreasing skill. Was his Camaro Headrest cut too short thus leading to a Samson-like loss of strength? His definition of “gone gay” is interesting and obfuscatory. The Romanist network has something between a large plurality and clear majority of practicing homosexuals among the priestly class (AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT) and Papa clearly wants to be even more hospitable the laity who practice the same. Rome has not gone gay, they’ve been gay for a long time. Presbyterianism is “going gay” because the dying mainline (which dropped all semblance of fidelity to the historic confessions decades ago) has a minority of members and ministers who are gay. And the Presbyterian-in-name-only mainline’s gay welcome mat for members looks suspiciously like the one Francis is trying to desperately to knit. But the mechanisms are in place, right.
LikeLike
What I find fascinating is that Rome is doing the Mainline Prot thing a century late and the CtC crowd, presumably all very conservative, have become their greatest apologists. For the most part, all of the Mainline denominations still have orthodox creeds; it’s their discipline that has changed. Ironically, Bryan, Susan, et al are essentially defending Mainline Protestantism.
LikeLike
Susan – No. It doesn’t, Erik. Not if those people who were living in adultery had a true contrition, and conversion of heart, and got married in The Church. For a sacrimental marriage and/or to be able to receive communion those people have to go be reconciled with The Church(Christ as the head) first.
Erik – So say I ditch my wife & kids and take up with another woman. We get married. A year later I feel contrition and confess my contrition to a priest. The church and I are good?
What about the feelings of the wife & kids I’ve ditched?
As long as me & the church are good, all is well?
This all seems rather vain and clueless.
LikeLike
Tom,
What’s with your obsession with “going gay”?
Has the Pope not expressed friendliness to the gay? “Who am I to judge”?
I’m also not a Presbyterian.
For as little as you’re getting through, you’re not saying much that is interesting or new.
LikeLike
Robert,
Exactly.
This idea that the discipline can change as long as the doctrine remains the same is a slippery slope.
But hey, as long as nothing Bryan has said is falsified, that’s what counts…
LikeLike
Unchurched Tom writes 10,000 hostile comments about Reformed theology and we’re the ones who are obsessed. O.K.
LikeLike
Erik, Blocked/Unblocked Tom is like a lot of America-first fundies where true religion equals conservative politics and sexual ethics (in the South add not drinking). Church attendance or membership is optional.
LikeLike
@Erik —
AFAIK the position of the OPC is considerably weaker. It basically defers to the civil magistrate. While getting divorced may be grounds for excommunication, there is no lifetime ban. The remarried freely join OPC churches, some even as ministers. Westminster defers to the civil magistrate and it was my impression that was the OPC position: once a civil divorce is taken place “no bond, no bar”.
LikeLike
Here’s a scenario. Let’s say I live in the hinterlands and the only presbyterian church for 120 miles is PCUSA — not an unusual situation. I’m a Westminsterian confessional presbyterian by conviction. Since the WCF is part of the PCUSA’s collection of confessions (viewed as “pious advice” at best) I can rationalize my membership though the pastorette is social gospeler named Megan who she spends a lot of time with a gal named Caitlin and my tithes go to support things like the Palestinian Authority and acceptance programs for LGBT high school students. Would I a) spend a lot of time trying to make everyone believe all is well {CtC approach} or b) suffer quietly and pray for a chance to move or help plant a real church? I wonder.
LikeLike
Erik,
This idea that the discipline can change as long as the doctrine remains the same is a slippery slope.
Indeed. Once the discipline changes, the doctrine changes. Once you start admitting divorced and remarried RCs to the Eucharist, you admit tacitly that the church’s understanding of marriage has been wrong. Yeah, I know we’ll get the dance about how the doctrine hasn’t changed and that application of it is fallible, but I’m still waiting for some RC to defend what in the world the good an infallible Magisterium is if it can’t apply doctrine infallibly.
For all the sacramentalism and stuff about Rome being incarnational, it ends up being a rather gnostic religion. The teaching is out there, but the incarnation of the teaching in the lives of ordinary people doesn’t really matter.
LikeLike
I think the obsessed may be known by what time they post their comments.
In any case, AFAIK, OLTS is the one and only place where the likes of Tom, Greg, Susan, Cletus,Hell, even me can make our voices heard, and the worst is an endearing jab in the side from Darryl, showing the error of our thinking amongst the smoking class. Unless the EO have something out there, the Catholics are way behind having something like OLTS, as us typcical.
My triumphalism for the day. Who is next?
LikeLike
Grew up amongst too many people who were molested by the Catholic clergy and almost nothing was done when they tried to file complaints. A few were laughed at, the best hoped for was to get the perv transferred to a new playground for his evil.
That sure isn’t a blueprint for throwing my brain into sub-zero temps and saying “all is 100% perfect in Rome, tee hee hee hee…”
LikeLike
CD,
I can’t speak for the OPC, but I have a few thoughts.
We (Reformed Protestants) don’t claim that marriage is a sacrament. Catholics do.
The only firsthand experience I have with divorce in the URCNA is a case where the wife pursued it, was unwilling to discuss the matter with the elders, and was eventually excommunicated (and barred from the table).
LikeLike
Robert,
The reason the doctrine vs. discipline schtick doesn’t work here is because we come out of the PCUSA and the Christian Reformed Church. We’ve heard it, seen it, and know better where the RCC is headed than the Catholics do. Once your leadership embraces liberalism there is no turning back. Human nature is consistent regardless of denominational labels. And yes, the RCC is just one, big Christian denomination.
LikeLike
The #1 factor that makes people susceptible to liberalism is not having to live in the real world. That’s why you so often see it with academics, government employees, clergy, and people living off of inherited money. When you have to meet a payroll, pay a mortgage, put braces on the kids teeth, and pay property taxes, all the while being subject to the demands of the free market, you come to realize how life really works.
Roman Catholic clergy live in a bubble from an early age (ask Sean). Same sex schooling with people of questionable orientation, the church paying all your bills, large bequests from deceased Catholics, not having to listen to a wife’s requests, free housing, and on and on.
Francis has been as sheltered from the practical, day-to-day burdens of this world as much as Barack Obama. Francis has to put on a show to try to look like an normal person. It’s no wonder the two of them are perennial rivals for Time’s “Man of the Year”.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Once the discipline changes, the doctrine changes.”
Last I checked Protestants don’t enforce women to wear head coverings or prohibit them from wearing jewelry and braiding their hair. Or men from having long hair. Or enforce women to only ask their husbands about theological questions. Or prohibit Christians from eating meat of strangled animals or blood. So I guess the apostolic doctrine has changed.
Augsburg Confession:
“The Apostles commanded to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is.”
Sounds like a distinction between unchanging principle and contingent application.
LikeLike
cw, gay is such an easy target. Do you think vd, t is a homophobe?
LikeLike
CD-H, practice varies among OP congregations (eee gads’s we’re not UNITED!!!!!!). I’ve served on sessions where divorce and remarriage was a barrier to membership.
LikeLike
Instead of “academics” I should say “tenured academics”. The academy has become a two-tiered system with the non-tenured having about as much job security as day laborers. Meanwhile the tenured cling to their positions as long as they are able (unless their TIAA-CREF accounts have hit seven figures, that is).
One of the most fascinating things to come out of internet-fueled seismic shift in journalism has been the hostility that newspaper editorial pages have shown to government employee benefits & pensions in recent years. When journalists were well taken care of they had no beef with these. Now that they are fighting for their jobs, they’ve suddenly taken notice. The realities of the market make people view things differently.
LikeLike
Erik,
“Once your leadership embraces liberalism there is no turning back.”
Leadership that includes the conservative bishops and cardinals who stepped up during the synod right? Oh wait, I keep forgetting only liberals count.
“know better where the RCC is headed than the Catholics do.”
This again. Yes, I know you’re a bit saddened things didn’t go the way you predicted this time – I mean everything was in place for the grand facade to fall down! Oh well. There’s always next October. When that fails, then it will be surely Francis will do something unilaterally. When that fails, then surely next decade. Then surely next century. Talk about unfalsifiability.
LikeLike
foxy lame, so how exactly does this — you guys do it too — help your side?
Rome is now Protestant? Great.
LikeLike
What system of tenure comes close to rivaling the Roman Catholic priesthood?
Lifetime housing, health care, travel, education. Generous retirement.
Sheltering when you commit questionable acts.
For the man who cares nothing about marrying a woman it doesn’t get much better.
LikeLike
Clete – Leadership that includes the conservative bishops and cardinals who stepped up during the synod right? Oh wait, I keep forgetting only liberals count.
Erik – Ever heard of Machen? He lost.
Trends, direction, the unfolding of history.
Why weren’t any of these conservative bishops elected Pope?
And the Synod isn’t over.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Sounds like a distinction between unchanging principle and contingent application.
Go on, ignore the obvious. What good is an infallible Magisterium when it doesn’t know what is prudential application and what isn’t. You guys only know after the fact. After a change is made, it was just plainly obvious that it was discipline. Meanwhile, we can tell the difference between what the Athanasian Creed meant in its original context and what LG says it means today: “belief in the Trinity really ain’t all that important.”
LikeLike
Erik,
“Ever heard of Machen? He lost.”
I see – so now any opposition to liberalism must lose because Machen did. I can see now why prognostications here have a poor record.
“Why weren’t any of these conservative bishops elected Pope?”
So when Ratzinger was elected, you didn’t predict the downfall of RCism due to liberalism right? No, in that case Benedict was just an isolated island fighting a losing battle. There’s nothing to convince you that conservatives actually exist in RCism or that they can do anything to counter liberalism.
Why haven’t any of those conservative bishops been removed entirely? That’s a better question.
“And the Synod isn’t over.”
Yep – I know – the implosion is going to happen. When? Well who knows, but it will, just trust me, because uh Machen. When the synod is over, and liberalism hasn’t destroyed the church, will you actually admit anything? Or will you say “And Francis’ pontificate isn’t over”.
Darryl,
“foxy lame, so how exactly does this — you guys do it too — help your side?
Rome is now Protestant? Great.”
Robert was denying the distinction. That was his argument. If Protestantism doesn’t deny the distinction, then there’s no argument.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Leadership that includes the conservative bishops and cardinals who stepped up during the synod right? Oh wait, I keep forgetting only liberals count.
If you knew Presbyterian history, you would also know that the conservatives kept winning battles at synods et al even as their margins got smaller and smaller and smaller. The trend of your communion is undeniable. The conservatives at this initial meeting won a Pyrhhic victory. When a large plurality of your bishops can’t figure out what the Bible teaches on human sexuality on the first pass, and so many of these bishops were appointed by men more conservative than Francis, you’ve got a serious problem.
LikeLike
lame fox,
“So when Ratzinger was elected, you didn’t predict the downfall of RCism due to liberalism right? No, in that case Benedict was just an isolated island fighting a losing battle.”
Wrong. Ratzinger imbibed all the same stuff that the rest of Vat 2 did. If you’d only admit your church changed then, you wouldn’t sound so lame.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yes so there’s nothing to convince you conservatives actually exist in RCism because Vat2. So I guess the conservatives at the synod are really just less liberal liberals. And conservative RC institutions/clergy/writers who also uphold Vat2 are really just less liberal liberals.
LikeLike
Clete,
It’s the move from Benedict to Francis that is disturbing.
You act like we’re the only ones noting these developments. You know plenty of Catholics are concerned.
I agree nothing drastic is going to happen overnight. The embrace of modernity and Vatican II was a game changer and I think you know it. Kenneth knows it. Bryan might know it but certainly isn’t letting on. Jason knows it and is glad.
In podcast #14 of “Drunk Ex-Pastors” Jason gives a lengthy discourse on the proper use of the term “motherfu**er”. If that’s not a liberated Catholic, I don’t know what is.
http://www.drunkexpastors.com/podcast-14-indoctrination-redux-indiscriminate-profanity-and-the-sport-of-soccer/
LikeLike
Clete – So I guess the conservatives at the synod are really just less liberal liberals. And conservative RC institutions/clergy/writers who also uphold Vat2 are really just less liberal liberals.
Erik – Yes.
Maybe not Burke, but it appears he’s getting demoted.
LikeLike
Probably a funny podcast Erik, the Mrs. and I enjoy Drunk History after all..
Thanks for reporting back your findings.
LikeLike
Cletus,
So I guess the conservatives at the synod are really just less liberal liberals.
We Presbyterians have seen these as well.
LikeLike
Erik,
“So say I ditch my wife & kids and take up with another woman. We get married. A year later I feel contrition and confess my contrition to a priest. The church and I are good?”
These are real life scenarios,and something the Church really does have to address in a loving way to those involved while staying true to what Jesus said about divorce.
Your first marriage, if you entered into it with your freewill, pledging fidelity and understanding the greatness of the binding vow( neither person was coerced, drunk…), then it is a valid marriage, and so your second marriage isn’t a true one because your first one trumps it by being a real marriage.
Now you might have children in both circumstances and so I really don’t know how all this is resolved, but I do know that the Church wants to restore and reconcile. Think of it, if the Catholic Church is the only place where a Christian can submit and is where the true body and blood of our Lord is offered, then there has to be some way to provide for the spiritual needs of the repentant sinner.
Also, remember that I do not know canon law, but I do know that Jesus wants our healing and so some kind of provision is offered.
LikeLike
lame fox, Hard to imagine no conservatives in the RCC and think about Bryan Cross. Also hard to contemplate how little conservative RC’s contemplate what Vat 2 wrought. I don’t think Neuhaus had Vat 2 in mind when he wrote (quoted by Douthat) the following (how could he since he was in love with JPII, a son of Vat 2), but it sure doesn’t seem to describe the “conservative” RC world any more as judged by the likes of you, Susan, and Bryan:
LikeLike
Erik,
That Reformed Protestants don’t recognize that marriage is a sacrament and the Catholic Church says it is ,and scripturally supports it, is a MOC. They have more scriptural support for their doctrines than I knew when I was Protestant. I discovered things and there were no pockets in my Protestant jacket in which to put them.
LikeLike
Susan – Think of it, if the Catholic Church is the only place where a Christian can submit and is where the true body and blood of our Lord is offered, then there has to be some way to provide for the spiritual needs of the repentant sinner.
Erik – But wouldn’t the Pre-Vatican II church pretty much just say “tough luck”? What was wrong with that?
What would you suggest the “repentant sinner” should have to do to make things right with the first wife and set of children? Shouldn’t she have veto power on that wayward husband receiving communion?
Is the Pope’s focus on justice and mercy or just mercy? (other than “economic justice”, which he seems to be quite focused on).
Liberals too often forget victims and focus on perpetrators.
LikeLike
Susan,
What’s the “Scriptural support” for marriage as a sacrament?
Jesus was baptized. Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. Jesus wasn’t married.
And if marriage is a sacrament, why deny it to priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope?
And how in the world is marriage a Motive of Credibility when it is common to all humanity? Adam and Eve were married. They weren’t Catholic.
LikeLike
Susan – They have more scriptural support for their doctrines than I knew when I was Protestant.
Erik – Yeah, like Unam Sanctam being justified biblically based on the fact that Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, not that he couldn’t have a sword.
Popes as biblical exegetes have a spotty record at best.
LikeLike
Susan, is that a Protestant or Catholic jacket in your avatar photo? Fortunately, Erik’s shirt has a jacket in the front, and he’s the OL star, right. We’re good, hope you are too.
Peace.
LikeLike
Whoops, Tom is the star (and I meant pocket, not jacket).
I still think you, Cletus, Greg, and Tom should all try golfing together as a foresome one of these days. I don’t know how you guys keep going, and if I were you, I would need something to let out all the steam.
In place of Tom rooting you on,
Andrew
Who’s next to keep this wild ride of a thread going? Clete, I think it’s your turn up to the tee, yo.
LikeLike
CVD, remember you can always keep your current
purgatoryhealthcare plan if you want to. Francis will not take it away from you. Promise.Susan, nothing you have said persuades me that . . . . never mind.
Marriage was instituted in the garden before the fall. It is common to all men, even those who aren’t snugly tucked into the bosom of the Roman church. Hence those marriages are valid whatever Rome wants to add or doesn’t add as the case may be. IOW its only a sacrament if Christ instituted it and we know he only instituted baptism and the Lord’s supper.
Two, there are valid divorces and remarriages, just as there are invalid ones.
You know, just like there are nominal churches and genuine churches.
It isn’t hard to figure out, unless you look no further than the advertising.
Which is all CtC is doing, as well as trading on the ignorance of its audience who can’t conceive that not only are there liars, there are sincerely deceived dupes that also spread lies for the home office.
Which leads once again, to Rome’s implicit faith. When all is said and done, lipservice is good enough to be saved. You don’t have to unnerstan nuthin’. All you got to do is believe.
Believe me I heard it enough growing up in that “church”.
LikeLike
Erik and Bob,
So can a man and women make their covenant without the state? If so why would he be wrong to live together? Who needs the paper, the state’s stamp?
LikeLike
Susan, yeah, how’s the perpetual virginity of Mary going in your reading of Paul’s letters? Okay, not in Paul. Peter? Anything on Mary? Anything!!??
LikeLike
Susan – So can a man and women make their covenant without the state? If so why would he be wrong to live together? Who needs the paper, the state’s stamp?
Erik – Can they? – Yes. Do churches usually recognize these relationships as marriages? I don’t believe so. Does the Roman Catholic church? What’s your point?
The main thing that state recognition does is serve to protect the weaker party in the relationship – normally the woman (and her children). This is a good thing and something that churches should support.
“Who needs a piece of paper?” – Wonderful line for the guy who wants to get laid consistently with no strings attached. Many gullible women have fallen for it for centuries.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted November 4, 2014 at 8:02 am | Permalink
Unchurched Tom writes 10,000 hostile comments about Reformed theology and we’re the ones who are obsessed. O.K.
Not atall, Erik. In fact I explain your religion quite sympathetically when others attack it.
However, I do point out that Old Life’s attacks on Catholicism are true of your own religion too. Your “confessions” are no different from magisterium, and neither are your translations and interpretations of the Bible.
You’re vulnerable to the same criticisms you make of the papists, and in fact their truth claim of being guided by the Holy Spirit is more efficacious then whatever method “Presbyterianism” uses to create its Tower of Intradenominational Babel.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted November 4, 2014 at 10:57 am | Permalink
cw, gay is such an easy target. Do you think vd, t is a homophobe?
I don’t know what “homophobe” means. It’s a left-wing nonsense word. My late brother was gay and I loved him dearly. I did not fear him.
I see you’re still dodging the fact that your church’s position on divorce is in plain conflict with the Bible. Until you man up, you have no place to diss the Catholics on any of this.
BTW, the conflict between conservatives and progressives is age-old. Here, learn something.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/11/04/catholic-squabbling-is-nothing-new/
At least they still have a church, while Reformed theology creates denominations by the sackful.
LikeLike
Tom – Your “confessions” are no different from magisterium
Erik – Really? Run this by Bryan.
Tom – and in fact their truth claim of being guided by the Holy Spirit is more efficacious then whatever method “Presbyterianism” uses
Erik – How in the world would you know that?
Tom – I see you’re still dodging the fact that your church’s position on divorce is in plain conflict with the Bible
Erik – What is the Orthodox Presbyterian position on divorce?
Lots of strange pronouncements coming out of your church of one tonight.
LikeLike
erik, vd, t has your back: “I explain your religion quite sympathetically when others attack it.”
Maybe not: “Reformed theology creates denominations by the sackful.”
LikeLike
Duh! That’s what we’ve all been saying here. Our creeds are fallible (we’ve revised them!), so are our interpretations of the Bible. We make mistakes…and try to correct them. So do Popes and Councils (It used to be that one was required to believe in the trinity in order to be saved – cf. Athanasian Creed – now one has to be believe it unless one doesn’t know any better – cf the Baltimore Catechism – “Muslims are part of the plan of salvation”). I think we are more or less in the same epistemological boat if not ontological boat.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted November 4, 2014 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
erik, vd, t has your back: “I explain your religion quite sympathetically when others attack it.”
Maybe not: “Reformed theology creates denominations by the sackful.”
But it does and you don’t deny it. It’s a structural problem.
Still dodging the divorce question I see. I understand your affection for tobacco. It helps you blow smoke.
LikeLike
Tom, how do you figure? Roman doctrine develops (because that’s what you do with infallible doctrine), Reformed doctrine revises (because that’s what you do with fallible doctrine). And if “homophobia” is a nonsense word then how do explain the likes of Fred Phelps? Maybe you are to right-wing ideology what the Callers are to the Roman magisterium, in such denial that you can’t see the cracks in the mother ship.
LikeLike
S, what makes a marriage?
The couple’s covenant before God and the community or the state’s subsequent recognition of it?
Of course if it goes gunnybag in the marriage and family everybody is running to catch up. At school, work, and church. Ditto that with the policeman and judge.
Neither does the church make a marriage, while her ministers may officiate, recognize, bless and celebrate a marriage. (No, the sacrifice of a mass is not how Christ said we are to observe his death or a marriage.)
The family preceded the state and the church.
From the family comes life, while the state has ability to take away life; the church has the keys to spiritual life and death.
The problems come when any one of the respective institutions try to do something that belongs to another. The Reformation was all about the church not doing its job in the first place and also aggrandizing to itself the powers of the state. Now arguably the state wants to define everything. It’s an ongoing battle.
LikeLike
zrim, of course vd, t is in denial. A guy who doesn’t go to church or submit to its discipline (such as it is) defending the church? That blows more than smoke.
LikeLike
Who has Bryan’s back?
LikeLike
Rome’s Protestant heart:
LikeLike
New name: “Sympathetic Tom”
I’ll make sure he gets invited to my funeral. Will tell my family to watch for the mullet.
LikeLike
“Last month, for instance, Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Bishop Kieran Conry of Arundel and Brighton in the United Kingdom after Conry admitted to a long-term affair with a woman in his diocese.”
An adult woman? I would think they would just be relieved.
LikeLike
What we see with the Roman Catholic Church is a continuation of the 500 year struggle they have undergone to find their place in the modern world.
For 1,000 years they enjoyed an unquestioned monopoly in the West. Due to their own abuse of power and the unwillingness of civil magistrates to continue holding them up, they found themselves with the previously unthinkable task of having to compete for members in a religious marketplace.
At Trent they stubbornly doubled down and basically maintained that posture up until the time of Vatican II — a questionable attempt to follow the example of Mainline Protestants who embraced modernity and liberalism as an attempt to connect with the modern world.
The current Pope is doubling down on the Vatican II experiment. Will the church experience renewal as a result or go the way of the Mainline churches — a long, slow march to irrelevance & extinction?
Bryan & The Callers get none of this.
LikeLike
the mullet right below the bald spot.
LikeLike
erik, double ding on the double down.
LikeLike
Bryan,
It appears there is some confusion about what I’ve said. I initially linked to your comments on Douthat because it was relevant to the discussion here at OL. Douthat has been arguing that in the face of recent developments that Catholics need to seriously consider what papal infallibility and submission to the church means. To simply accept *anything* that the Church would teach would be “ultramontanism, unmoored from the official reasons for its claims.”
Now, this is why I noted in my initial comment that to be fair, you also note that the claims of the Church cannot simply be by mere fiat. The churches decisions are rational even if my understanding is subpar. Douthat recognizes something in this situation, however, that is unsettling; some of the potential changes, advocated by delegates specifically sent from Francis, would contradict official dogma. In this scenario, submission to the pope would be an extreme form of ultramontanism because it would be irrational to affirm two contradictory “infallible” teachings.
The reason that your position *appears* fideistic is because on the one hand you make caveats about the Magisterium being rational, but then you criticize Douthat for not “putting aside anxieties.” We ought to submit ourselves with docility to the Magisterium of the Church, you say. Likewise, you state,
This is understandable on one level. Douthat agrees with you in principle that the “authentic Magisterium” cannot contradict the Tradition. Douthat is looking at the world around him though and it is creating cognitive dissonance. It may not be reason for him to abandon his faith, and as I’ve noted, I can understand that. At the same time, he is entertaining what his confession of faith means when he believes that its trajectory moves it in a direction that is contradictory.
Moreover, I’m not misrepresenting your position. Pointing out Comment #50 is precisely the sort of thing that can, in some way, help to clarify my perception and vindicate me from your charges of misrepresentation. You believe, like Douthat, that a change would amount to a contradiction and therefore falsify Catholicism [Just like if Jesus’s corpse were discovered my Christianity would be undermined, even though I do not believe Jesus’s body could be found because he has been raised]. In light of this I don’t think that your criticism of Douthat is coherent since you agree with one another about what a contradiction would entail while simultaneously believing that such a contradiction could not occur. The only difference I can sense between Douthat and yourself is one of demeanor.
Douthat believes that the faithful need to be involved in this process and may even need to disobey the pope in some capacity in order to uphold the “Petrine ministry.” What we get in your response to Douthat though, is precisely what Douthat is criticizing: a sort of docility that could actually work to subvert the health of the RCC. I’d characterize this perspective as “There is no need to be anxious because the Church cannot possible err.” Douthat’s citation of Neuhaus (which is also cited by DGH) demonstrates how your fellow Catholics view such a stance. I’m simply offering my “Amen.”
Moreover, it seems to me that you are over-reacting or being hyper-sensitive to my initial comments that your position seems to border on fideism. First of all, Douthat makes the same criticism, though he terms it ultramontanism. Second, I am not making a public criticism of you or even of your argument. I was simply providing my sense of your comments in relation to Douthat’s. I even note that there is tension because I recognize that you do believe that the Church’s teachings are rational. I’m trying to be even-handed and I don’t pretend to have refuted your argument in a few sentences. Third, I’ve cited different statements from Douthat and yourself to ground my interpretation. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that my reasoning may be deficient and that I may need to improve my understanding (as is Douthat). I also welcome any criticism where I may have inaccurately represented someone, because I want to be corrected where I am wrong.
LikeLike
Brandon, and here’s something to add to your point:
Nothing here — at Bryan’s site — about the magisterium or that the laity can sit back and let charism do its work. Laity should actually contact bishops. No mention of what to do when your Bishop is someone like a Kaspar.
LikeLike
The empirical fact is that there are a lot of Christian denominations in the US. The hypothesis that this explosion of denominations is caused by reformed theology is tenuous at best:
1) Christian denominations did not proliferate with the reformation – that came later
2) Other religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism didn’t historically have the number of sects that Christianity has post-reformation. However, that has changed in modern america.
3) presbyterians are as responsible for the proliferation of baptistic independent churches as Rome is for the dozens of splinter “catholic” groups.
A better explanation for the proliferation of denominations is the recognition of religious liberty by the state. When the state no longer coerces religious belief, you get an expansion of religious practice.
In America that political freedom is united with an incredible entrepreneurial spirit (compare beer options in Germany to the variety of beers available in the US). This applies to religion as well…there is nearly as much diversity among self identified RCs as there is among “protestants”. Bryan tells us that these dissidents, formal heretics, are not in unity with Rome. Judging on beliefs about the morality of divorce, ssm, and abortion (among other issues), those actually in unity with Rome is about the size of the OPC. But once there is no economic or social penalty for changing one’s affiliation and you get access to a veritable smorgasbord of religious groups, you are bound to see the proliferation of religious affiliation (the overwhelming majority of which are of order unity…the unaffiliated spiritual but not religious).
I guess one could make the case that the reformation enabled the modern liberal democratic nationstate and economic prosperity that enables the masses to sit around and think about what they want their religion to be. But like I said, that is pretty tenuous. Does the call to communion really want to be a call to the end of religious tolerance and economic prosperity? Because I don’t think you get the unity the callers dream of in an environment where freedom of conscience and material wealth abound.
LikeLike
What happens when the rogue bishop is the Bishop of Rome, the very bishop who supposedly makes the superior paradigm superior? This creates a huge problem for the Caller’s apologetic. Circuits could overheat, transistors could melt, and smoke could come out of ears.
LikeLike
Note that Sean Patrick’s post pre-dates Francis. We need an update.
This morning I drove by the Episcopal Church and they had a new sign in their window:
“God Loves You…No Matter What”
That is Francis. That is liberalism.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Again your “scenario” presupposes that there could be such a thing as “two contradictory “infallible” teachings,” and that presupposition begs the question in the way I’ve described in previous comments.
Like I said previously, if what you want to do is go by appearances, then you and I are engaged in two different kinds of activities, and there is no point continuing the conversation. The actual question is not about *appearances,* but about reality: is my position actually fideistic, or is it not actually fideistic. If you think it is, and you want to do more than merely assert or suggest this, then you need to present an argument showing that it is.
Yes, you did in your earlier comment when you attempted to describe my position as being such that if such a contradiction were to occur, we are then supposed to pursue a deeper understanding of the Magisterium’s teaching. That’s most definitely not my position, because my position denies that such a contradiction can occur. I’m not sure how to make it any clearer.
Feel free to show how, exactly, from what I said, it follows that my criticism is incoherent.
Again, if you think something I said is false, feel free to show it. Claiming that what I said would “subvert the health of the RCC” doesn’t show that anything I said is false.
And, also accusing my position of being fideistic by way of the suggestion that it appears to “border” on fideism.
This is a criticism of me (notice that the subject of your sentence is “you”). It leaves the truth of what I said untouched.
Again, feel free to show how Douthat’s statement shows something I said to be false. Even if you tried to show that my position was ultramontanist, that would be better than merely suggesting that my position is wrong because a journalist offered a similar criticism to one you offered, and called the position he criticized ultramontanism.
Suggesting that a person’s position is fideistic is a criticism, especially given that his Church condemns fideism. And saying that a person is “over-reacting and being hyper-sensitive” is a criticism of that person. And this is a public forum, in which you have made both of those criticisms. So, yes you are making a public criticism of both me and my argument. But none of these criticisms shows that anything I said is not true. So far, it is still all at the level of appearances and negative suggestion, which is the ordinary mode of speech here at OLTS. Genuine dialogue, by contrast, is a different species of activity, one that can neither sprout nor flourish in a context where what is prized is success in appearances.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
We are beginning to wonder, slow learner that we is, just exactly which Iron Maiden – no, not the heavy metal music instrument of torture – Bryan has embraced in the name of The One True Church. The philosophical or the popish, if not a
transgenderedmishmash of the two?And while all around our noble hero things dissolve into ecclesiastical chaos, one’s corrupt and paradigmatically compromised private judgement remembers other grim lessons from history on the fate of the innocent and naive.
According to Tacitus, when the children of Sejanus suffered the fate of their father, the little girl was so unconscious of her fate she kept asking where she was being dragged, saying she would do it no more. Further since there was no precedent for the capital punishment of a virgin, she was violated by the executioner with the rope on her neck, before being strangled with her brother and thrown down the Gemonian Steps.
Our bet is that the center cannot hold. Francis will be the falsifier of B&C’s CIP until . . . he’s not.
Or until sedevacantism becomes what the B&C party line/true Roman magisterium teaches even as it has always taught it.
Wait for it.
LikeLike
I resemble that remark, Bryan.
You definately have my vote for Pope if your name comes up. Just don’t let them make you give up the flat cap if it comes down to that.
Hope you are well.
LikeLike
Bryan,
The use of the term *appear* is a term of humility, admitting that I may be incorrect. Your response to Duothat is basically, “don’t sweat it, it can’t happen,” which Douthat and Neuhaus have characterized as functionally ultramontanist (or in my terms, fideism). I simply noted that it seems to me that Douthat is right and that the content of your response (i.e. what you do not say) makes Douthat’s point, but I also wanted to point out that you explicitly say the Magisterium can’t contradict itself.
If you want to capitalize on the use of a term that is intended to express reservation as a way to criticize my argument then it shows that there has been a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. I’m sure that I could express myself better and I’m regretful where I’ve not done so. It’s disappointing, however, that someone who would presume to be every interlocutors teacher would adopt behaviors so detrimental to productive conversation.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Ask Bryan this: If the Pope says something and a thinking Catholic thinks that it sounds off, goes to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, and confirms that what the Pope said was indeed off, what should that thinking Catholic do?
Similarly, if the Pope says something that is at odds with something a Pope from the past said, what should that thinking Catholic do?
Ask him gently or he might take his marbles and go home.
LikeLike
Stop for a moment and ask yourself if you know anyone else in your life who communicates like Bryan.
If you don’t, are these communication snafus a Bryan problem or an everyone else problem?
LikeLike
Brandon,
I’m grateful for the humility. If that’s your stance, then rest assured that my position is not fideistic. (And if that’s all you wanted to know, i.e. whether my position is fideistic, or how it is not fideistic, you could have just asked.)
My response to Douthat is much more than that, for a number of reasons, among which is that what must be specified is the ambiguous “it” in your “it can’t happen.” As long as the ‘it’ remains unspecified, you can generate the appearance of a disagreement between, for example, Fr. Neuhaus and myself.
If you think my position is “functionally ultramontanist,” then let’s see the argument. Otherwise, again, your criticism is just an assertion that by mere association connects my position to one others have called ultramontanist, thus generating the appearance of error, but without actually showing there to be an error in my position. Otherwise, if you just wanted to know whether my position is ultramontantist, or how it isn’t ultramontanist, you could have simply asked.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Any reason you link to CtC when you post here, and your blog when you post at CtC?
Hey, do you like jokes? You know how everyone thinks you’re a robot? Maybe this is kind of like you and Darryl.
Smile,
Andrew
LikeLike
I haven’t read the article written by some Dominicans yet so I don’t fully know what the worry is about, but because I know that the Catholic Church can’t change the nature of morality, I can trust her in the same way that I trust Jesus.
You see, the Catholic Church will never say that sexual relations between members of the same sex is not a mortal sin. If a gay Catholic wants to receive the Lord in the Eucharist( and I can’t see why any one would want to show up at church not wanting to receive everything that is to be gotten in the liturgy of the Mass) he or she cannot be in a state of mortal sin. Now if I had a gay son or daughter who struggled with same sex attraction and hadn’t broken free of the acts, I would want the Church to offer more love and acceptance of him or her, as a person. Hypothetically, maybe in a situation like that, the homosexual could approach the altar with reference, while holding the hand of the family member who is able to receive that Lord, or to be encourage to approach the priest for a blessing or something like this. Sinners always must feel that the Church is inviting them to come back, just like the Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son. People need the love of God. But you can’t change reality either, so there is no compromise, only adjustment.
This is just my clumsy hypothesis at what ‘changes” could possibly occur.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross
Posted November 5, 2014 at 2:44 pm | PermalinkSo, yes you are making a public criticism of both me and my argument. But none of these criticisms shows that anything I said is not true. So far, it is still all at the level of appearances and negative suggestion, which is the ordinary mode of speech here at OLTS. Genuine dialogue, by contrast, is a different species of activity, one that can neither sprout nor flourish in a context where what is prized is success in appearances.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Heh heh. Ding. Bullies don’t do very well when they get pushed back.
LikeLike
Golfers never blame themselves, yo.
LikeLike
susan
Posted November 5, 2014 at 4:31 pm | Permalink
I haven’t read the article written by some Dominicans yet so I don’t fully know what the worry is about, but because I know that the Catholic Church can’t change the nature of morality, I can trust her in the same way that I trust Jesus.
You see, the Catholic Church will never say that sexual relations between members of the same sex is not a mortal sin. If a gay Catholic wants to receive the Lord in the Eucharist( and I can’t see why any one would want to show up at church not wanting to receive everything that is to be gotten in the liturgy of the Mass) he or she cannot be in a state of mortal sin. Now if I had a gay son or daughter who struggled with same sex attraction and hadn’t broken free of the acts, I would want the Church to offer more love and acceptance of him or her, as a person.
Yes, but Michael Sean Winters!
LikeLike
But by speculating about it ,as Catholics and Protestants both conservative and liberal are doing, I am showing how the cackling plays out in the world. This is what Douthat and others do when we/they don’t prove how something is a change in dogma.
LikeLike
Bryan, more assertions without arguments, as if we are in some kind of logic class. Where did Trent argue with Protestantism? When did you become the pontiff or argument?
Ad hominemns, of course. We’re human down here. What’s up with you?
LikeLike
http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/john-henry-newman-at-the-synod-on-the-family/4531/
LikeLike
Tom – Heh heh. Ding. Bullies don’t do very well when they get pushed back.
Erik – If only Bryan would push back. He merely points out the logical fallacies committed by the pusher and retreats, only to return a month later and repeat.
When he does, on occasion, engage, it’s usually a fruitful and interesting discussion.
Unlike you, Tom, he actually has something compelling that he is defending.
Your ideological cupboard is bare, so all you can be is a pest.
LikeLike
To recap:
Brian and the Callers cast a very bold vision of what the Roman Catholic Church is: A church that, when it teaches infallibly, can not err. It’s doctrine is timeless and unchanging. It is a church that can be trusted, it can not fail, the gates of hell can not prevail against it.
As fallen men in a fallen world, however, we experience this Church as it deals with sin — even the sin of its own leaders. The Church has taken different stances on issues throughout history. Outsiders look at this and say, “look, change!”. The faithful respond that it is not doctrine that has changed but “discipline” — pastoral practice.
When you read Bryan, the trust that he shows in the Church seems quite mystical. He accuses Douthat of approaching Catholicism from a Protestant perspective, insisting that the Church’s teaching must make sense to him before he fully accepts it.
The problem Bryan faces, however, is that he wants to have this mystical faith in the church on one hand while demanding absolute logical consistency and precision on the part of those who question him. The burden is on the skeptic to prove him wrong, but the faith he has is not established based purely on logic & reason. He has taken a leap of faith that the Church is who she says she is, yet will not let us make any criticism that is not based purely on logic and reason. This is not fair.
The biggest gap in the Caller apologetic is their unwillingness to seriously encounter what appear to most reasonable people to be developments in time and space that cast doubt on the Roman Catholic Church being the divine creation that the Callers claim it is — that they claim they have “discovered”. As I’ve mentioned before, the scant coverage and wrestling with the sex abuse scandal is hugely telling. This was a mind-blowing event that still plagues the church today — financially and otherwise. You have to help people make sense of this if you want them to take “the call” seriously. Just overlooking it and hoping it goes away or that no one notices or asks isn’t going to work.
Likewise, the statements that Francis has made need to be dealt with — not just angrily dismissed or dealt with by belittling questioners or acing offended because they’ve asked the question wrong. Any true faith will take on all comers, whether they’re offensive or not, whether they’ve asked the question right or not.
Tom Van Dyke has been here giving us crap for two years, but we still engage him — sometimes sincerely, sometimes not. We fear nothing he says or asks, though, because he has shown he has nothing better to offer. Bryan knows that we do offer a viable alternative to what he is promoting, though – a faith not based on men (even allegedly divinely appointed men), but a faith based on Scripture, carried out in churches bearing the marks identified in Scripture. Those churches are not led by special men, but by ordinary men. When those men fail, we are not surprised, because it is not them in who our faith rests. It is in Christ alone.
LikeLike
Erik, when I started reading theology blogs, the called it the Borg apologetic. Not sure why, but that always stuck with me.
For you too, Tom.
Engage.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart writes
Posted November 5, 2014 at 6:11 am | Permalink
zrim, of course vd, t is in denial. A guy who doesn’t go to church or submit to its discipline (such as it is) defending the church? That blows more than smoke.
How low will you go to lash out, Darryl? You and your little club treat self-professed observant Catholics Bryan and Susan quite shoddily. Church affiliation and attendance are irrelevant.
LikeLike
AB
Posted November 5, 2014 at 7:52 pm | Permalink
Erik, when I started reading theology blogs, the called it the Borg apologetic. Not sure why, but that always stuck with me.
For you too, Tom.
Engage.
Ah but you nailed it long ago about this blog, Brother Andrew. Rabies theologorum.
With Darryl loosing his henchman to make fun of people’s hats and hair.
Who are the Borg, exactly? Darryl wins either way, when Catholicism is authoritarian, or when it permits dissent and discussion. Meanwhile his own Orthodox Presbyterian Church had a schism before it was even a year old!
And his OPC put Dr. Terry Gray on ecclesiastical trial for evolution! And where were you, Darryl? Your denomination is on the ass end of the Monkey Trial.
Darryl panics when the bones of his own religion and sect are bared. And I don’t blame you, D. But attacking other people’s religion doesn’t make yours true.
LikeLike
Tom,
The question remains to Kenneth
The callers answer only when it is good propaganda, and the words from the current pope only make their job more difficult. No thanks, I’ll keep my distance from the borg collective CTC/RCC. Once a fundy raised chap as I finds Machen and Co., the journey ends. All that’s left to wonder is why I haven’t been on a golf course in so long. Hope the back is holding up.
Take care, and duck the fodgers yo.
LikeLike
PS the OPC welcomes scientists (such as my geologist wife) but we draw the line at animal ancestry for Adam. We discussed that before, as we have Paul Tillich. As yourself why you can’t get enough oldlife vs. CTC and youll answer the question of who has rabies theologorum around these interwebs. G’night.
LikeLike
Andrew B,
Hi. Do protestants go to hell? good question. The answer deserves more than I can give in a few short sentences. Read below
http://www.coffeehouseinquisition.com/brothers-in-christ/
LikeLike
Erik,
Do you think that the Arian controversy ruins the Catholic claim of infallibility? If not, how in the world does the modern situation? I think that “the callers” and like minded people are frustrated with old lifers because your critique misses the mark so thoroughly. The Church is not impeccable. The Church does not make all matters of faith and morals clear as crystal at all times, to all of its members. The Church is not made up of robots whom never suffer from ignorance, dissent, or sin. No one has ever “mentioned” to protestants when these things happen because those are “in-house” issues and debates. They have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic apologetic to those outside of the Church. Sin, dissent, ignorance, historical periods of confusion, etc, do not impact our arguments in the slightest. We do not claim to be an ecclesiastical Utopia with no problems of our own. If Bryan ever claimed that the Church was ecclesiastical Utopia he would be wrong… but he never has made that claim. Neither has Jason…. neither has anyone else that I am aware of…. hence, the frustration.
They need to be dealt with “in house” but have nothing to do with the Catholic apologetic to those outside of the Church. If Pope Francis has made some mistakes, he has not yet made them in any authoritative and binding capacity… which is really all that matters for the sake of our convos
LikeLike
erik, I wish Bryan would wear your recap instead of his cap.
LikeLike
Loser Ken, you’re not listening to your papa:
Oh wait, there’s more:
If disobedience to the church is a mortal sin, I don’t think Protestants have an upside in RC heaven.
LikeLike
loser ken, “The Church does not make all matters of faith and morals clear as crystal at all times, to all of its members. The Church is not made up of robots.”
Except Bryan.
LikeLike
Kenneth, so they can but only if they are invincibly ignorant. Like anyone can even know that. I see you got your Bryan Cross schtick down. With Darryl, I can’t square your writing with your Pope’s.
LikeLike
Mulligan link.
LikeLike
Tom – But attacking other people’s religion doesn’t make yours true.
Erik – How about attacking other people’s lack of religion?
LikeLike
Yes. Church councils erred, and later councils fixed it. The victors then made a post-hoc declaration that those councils weren’t valid. This is like shooting an arrow, drawing a bulls-eye where it lands and claiming that you are incapable of missing.
Maybe it would help you see why this rings so hollow if you applied the same approach to a debate about political systems. Say we go back forty years to the height of the ColdWar and imagine a Soviet and American debating the relative merits of capitalism and communism. The Soviet claims that his economic system is superior, and nothing the capitalist says can falsify his paradigm. Once you accept a scientific view (Marxist) view of history, it is clear that communism must be right. The Capitalist might respond, that communism leads to much suffering, disarray, shortages, and is in practice inferior to capitalism – indeed, the theory may be sound, but it is incomplete and does not apply to the real world. If the soviet were to adopt the structure of the CtC apologetic, he would dismiss such concerns as question begging and red herrings. Nothing the capitalist says falsifies the logic of communism, and besides the communist never claimed to be perfect – only superior to the exploitive structures of capitalism.
The sin of your hierarchy and the rampant clericalism takes a sledgehammer to your church’s credibility. The historical claims are self-serving and poorly validated – why should I trust them given how untrustworthy they are. The post hoc justifications necessary to maintain infallibility are not compelling to people not already committed to the “paradigm”. The “in-house” problems strike right at the foundation of your call – you aren’t more unified than protestantism, the magisterium does not solve problems with perspicuity, and your “superior” moral philosophy is ineffective at promoting moral behavior among your leaders. But enjoy your superior paradigm…
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Your response is substantive, but I think what you are missing is that you are asking people to accept the Church — to “discover” the Church — not on the basis of all available evidence, but only on the basis of selective evidence that casts the Church in a favorable light.
The Motives of Credibility invite us to evaluate the Church based not on fideism (blind faith), but on the basis of evidence.
In other words, it should all be fair game.
When Jason discovered the Church, I heard his wife’s response was that there was no way she was joining a Church that hid & protected pedophiles. I think most people find that to be fair.
LikeLike
sdb – This is like shooting an arrow, drawing a bulls-eye where it lands and claiming that you are incapable of missing.
Erik – I seem to recall Bryan writing a post on this very subject.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
You also need to consider that when your dirty laundry is all over the front page of the New York Times it’s no longer an “in house” issue. You need to account for it in your apologetic or you look like snake oil salesmen.
LikeLike
SDB—Yes. Church councils erred, and later councils fixed it. The victors then made a post-hoc declaration that those councils weren’t valid. This is like shooting an arrow, drawing a bulls-eye where it lands and claiming that you are incapable of missing.
Bingo. And let’s ask someone like Athanasius how valid those Arian councils were while he was trying to defend the deity of Christ and being punished for it. He certainly didn’t believe those Arian councils were true, but most of the rest of the church and the emperor did. There goes any meaningful way to know what is orthodox and what is not for the people living under confusion when your paradigm is ecclesiastical infallibility.
Roman Catholics living today simply have no way to know whether what they believe sincerely today won’t be declared heresy two hundred years from now. Once you surrender to an infallible magisterium, whatever it says goes even when it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
I have plenty of faith that the Spirit is guiding the church, and God’s people will get it right over time. But I need to know right now what is true because I am living right now. The magisterium can’t give me that certainty, especially when you have Francis steering the ship.
LikeLike
Yeah. It is as convincing as his post equating solo/sola, lectures about begging the question, etc… which is to say not at all.
LikeLike
sdb, and to pile on (and repeat myself), the pedophilia scandal is not scandalous because of wayward eyes and hands of men ordained. It is the cover up by bishops (read infallibile magisterium). If you are trusting these guys to get morals and doctrine right, what the hades happened in the case not only of refusing to demit men from the ministry but also moving to other parishes and hiding what happened? How could you trust the bishops again? Should you have trusted them before?
LikeLike
DGH,
Piling on your pile, the response that school teachers are just as much if not more guilty of molestation demonstrates how poorly Catholics actually understand what we’re saying.
We’re not criticizing Catholicism for having rogue priests or bishops. Every institution has it’s Judas’s from the USA to the URC. The problem with the RCC is that at its core one of the *most corrupt* institutions in the world.
If it was just the way they harbored and aided pedophiles in their organization that were preying on children, that would be bad enough. But they also have the world’s most notorious banking system that functioned as a money laundering operation for all types of sordid transactions. The allegations and video evidence of Vatican officials gallivanting at gay bars and frequently hiring homosexual escorts in the “Holy City” with no apparent recourse further illustrates the duplicity that exists at the Vatican.
This doesn’t mean every individual in the institution is corrupt or evil, and its encouraging to see Francis cleaning things up at the Vatican Bank (which apparently Benedict tried to clean up as well). For this Protestant though, not only does the sordid history (modern and medieval) make me unable to trust the Vatican, it also eviscerates the “motives of credibility.” When an institution this corrupt believes it is infallible and convinces its membership of the same, the environment is ripe for predators to abuse those under their care with no accountability.
LikeLike
D.G,
The answer is to be found in the very thing we’re talking about. When the focus is not on Christ & Scripture, but on the authority of an institution, everything must be directed at protecting the credibility of that institution at all costs. The problem is, like with every cover-up, the consequences are much worse when you don’t disclose and deal with the situation right away.
LikeLike
@Kenneth
No but does ruin the claim of the Catholic church being the only major form of Christianity existing until the Reformation, and that all Christians with the exceptions of a few heretics agreed to be governed by the magisterium. Were the controversy over only a few decades that would be one thing. But the reality that Arianism was successful and spread north being a major form of Christianity for centuries, including quite possibly the majority form of Christianity for long stretches within those centuries, even after the creeds were written and again and again the church unambiguously asserted an anti-Arian position most certainly does contradict Catholic claims about its historicity.
Of course they do. A “historical period of confusion” is just another word for a doctrine changing.
Actually he has. He most certainly has. He most certainly has time and time again made assertion about “what everyone believed” or “what everyone thought was true” and when the historical reality that not everyone believed that nor did everyone think it was true nor did the church always teach it he simply failed to retract to a correct formulation. CtC institutionally has done the same thing, though Bryan individually not as much.
Historical claims are not strictly claims of faith. They are testable by documentary and archeological evidence. They frequently cease to be a question of philosophical or theological paradigms and become merely questions of examining evidence. And that is something that CtC + Jason avoids precisely so as to maintain the illusion of an ecclesiastical Utopia in their apologetic.
LikeLike
Darryl/Brandon/Erik, it’s the difference between an authoritarian view of authority and a Presbyterian view. It’s high church Fundamentalism.
LikeLike
Brandon and Darryl,
And to pile on more, I can’t tell you how many RCs—including Francis—respond to the sex abuse scandal with something like “well, the media goes after the church more than the others because the media hates the church or because Satan is trying to get the church.”
If we were to assume this is true, how much to you have to ignore to believe that an infallible church would not know this and therefore not do everything in its power to make sure it didn’t give its enemies legitimate fodder. Jesus said all men would hate His disciples. He didn’t say—give them legitimate reasons to hate you.
Infallibility just doesn’t work on any practical level. It increases the human propensity to protect the institution and it delivers decontextualized dogmatic pronouncements that we cannot know if we understand them correctly in our own day. It’s a shell game.
LikeLike
It looks like error is possible even for an infallible officer:
Are you going to believe a guy named Bryan or Roberto?
LikeLike
Uh yeah error, imprudence, neglect, etc. is possible. Why is this news again? You all keep evaluating infallibility according to your own pre-conceived criteria of how it should work rather than what Rome has defined the criteria to be. Do you let atheists and liberals get away with criticizing your views on Scriptural inerrancy and inspiration based on how they think it should work rather than how conservatives define it should work? I doubt it.
CDH,
“Historical claims are not strictly claims of faith. They are testable by documentary and archeological evidence. They frequently cease to be a question of philosophical or theological paradigms and become merely questions of examining evidence. And that is something that CtC + Jason avoids precisely so as to maintain the illusion of an ecclesiastical Utopia in their apologetic.”
Yes and given your atheism I’m sure you apply this just as much to Scriptural claims. Are Darryl and the OLers here avoiding questions of examining the evidence precisely so as to maintain the illusion of Scriptural inerrancy and inspiration in their apologetic? People do not examine evidence as if tabula rasa – that’s why you have erudite scholars on both sides of questions regarding historical claims because of their presuppositions.
Robert,
“I have plenty of faith that the Spirit is guiding the church, and God’s people will get it right over time. But I need to know right now what is true because I am living right now.”
Your second sentence seems to contradict your first.
LikeLike
I knew you had it in you, Cleaty.
Catholics, neither. But Catholics who pose as TV characters? Those are my favorite. If I post again, I’ll be sure to include some youtube link to a tv show for ya. Any seasons of The Shield you particularly like? Can’t say we’ll get to it, we’re working through Boardwalk Empire and The Following these days. Just since you are all about asking questions and no answers, thought I’d send one up your wheelhouse.
Cheerio!
LikeLike
I love it when Roman Catholics criticize a Protestant high view of Scripture while at the same time trying to justify Roman Catholicism based on Scripture. I guess Scripture is only authoritative when they want it to be.
Jason went 1,000 comments or so defending Catholicism on the basis of Scripture at Greenbaggins before saying “this sucks” and finding something more fun to do.
LikeLike
The ever-existing problem, Clete, is that you have so much more ground to defend than we do. Scripture, plus tradition, plus history, plus infallibility, plus questionable “miracles”, plus the dumb thing the Pope said this week, plus nominal Catholics, plus Vatican II, plus Mass in Halloween costumes, plus scandals, plus…
LikeLike
Erik,
RCs criticize SS because they don’t believe that’s how Scripture’s authority was ordained to function. That would hardly mean appeals to Scripture to support RCism are invalid or hypocritical – if it’s viewed as an authority in RCism, why would it not be appealed to?
LikeLike
Clete,
Apostles & eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus. We should listen to them.
Listening to men 2,000 later who claim to be on the same level as apostles & eyewitnesses? Not so much.
LikeLike
One guess at who said the following:
.
.
.
.
.
Give up?
Jason Stellman. I know, the frak was a dead give away, but it’s still kinda fun to look at some of Jason’s older stuff, using his blog’s search feature &tc. Now there’s a fella who likes to write and produce stuff on the internet, yo.
LikeLike
Either the frak gave it away, or that we in the OPC have stones. rockin’
LikeLike
Cletus,
Your second sentence seems to contradict your first.
Not at all. Romanist epistemology is essentially that without the church, the ordinary Christian can’t know the meaning of Scripture or tradition. The problem is that even with the church you can’t know it because I’ve had more than one RC tell me that though the dogma is infallible, its interpretation and application isn’t necessarily—that popes can think they are infallible when in fact they are infallibly teaching.
About the only thing you guys can know is that Rome is the church Jesus founded. But of course, you can’t know the extent of this church, which extent has changed over time. The basis on which you know the church is the church Jesus founded is also no less broadly circular than the way in which I know what Scripture is. You admitted it above when you said presuppositions govern the interpretation of evidence. IOW, nobody thinks the motives of credibility are credible unless they have already decided in their hearts to be Romanists.
If you think God has spoken clearly and doesn’t need the church to hold his hand in defining dogma, you get lots of certainty.
LikeLike
What does “let them” even mean in this context. If you would like to see what a debate between an atheist and the OL gang looks like, you might read the comments between CDH and several OL’ers regarding 1Jn several threads back. We disagree deeply about all sorts of things regarding biblical scholarship and exegesis, but you’ll notice a decided absence of schoolmarm lecturing about begging the question, etc…
LikeLike
Brandon,
Do you think that most people in the Catholic Church approve of the corruption and immoral behavior that you mention? There would be work to clean it up, if the church were corrupt to its core.You must not understand that the Church exists sacramentally in the world, calling all people(baptized Catholics lay and clergy) to put off the old man and put on the new, through constant conversion. Sin isn’t so easily gotten rid of but scripture affirms that we can live chastely.
How many Protestant men are there who have addictions to porn, that no one knows about?How many divorced and remarried,essentially living in adultery,since remarriage is adultery, according to Jesus?
It is the Catholic Church only that says that marriage cannot be broken being that it is a sacramental sign of the love and fidelity that Jesus has for His church. How many Protestant communions uphold that union, not as a creation ordinance alone, but as a in-dissolvable visible testament of Jesus’s love and care for us? Yes, there is corruption in the Church, but what do you “do” when there are so many goods? In the same way that bad things hurt its credibility doesn’t its extraordinary wisdom and goodness commend it?
LikeLike
AB,
Have you considered creating your own blog and then commenting on your own posts? I’m positive you’ll find the drive-by comments, jokes that miss their mark, and failed attempts at snark there delightful.
Better yet (and how is this for old school?), keep a private diary, yo!
LikeLike
Robert,
“The problem is that even with the church you can’t know it…About the only thing you guys can know is that Rome is the church Jesus founded.”
Yep that’s an article of faith. So we already have one such example that cannot ever be offered from your system by its own admission and principles.
“You admitted it above when you said presuppositions govern the interpretation of evidence.”
Naturalist or atheistic presuppositions versus theistic presuppositions does not entail one cannot evaluate the credibility of the claims made by Rome, Protestant denomination x, Islam, Scientology, and Mormonism without presupposing the truth of each body’s claims beforehand. And even if one did, some claims are inconsistent and incoherent even granting them – internal critiques are just as valid for evaluating credibility.
“IOW, nobody thinks the motives of credibility are credible unless they have already decided in their hearts to be Romanists.”
Why would someone decide to be a Romanist without having engaged the motives of credibility first? That desire just got magically beamed into their brain?
“If you think God has spoken clearly and doesn’t need the church to hold his hand in defining dogma, you get lots of certainty.”
If God has spoken clearly, why did you say “I have plenty of faith that the Spirit is guiding the church, and God’s people will get it right over time” – shouldn’t they have gotten it right currently? That’s why I said your second sentence contradicted your first – you’re just affirming semper reformanda while at the same time saying ” I need to know right now what is true because I am living right now.” which seems inconsistent.
LikeLike
Susan,
I do believe many people you believe we ought to submit to support evil behavior in one manner of another. Some of them have been the perpetrators and others have been involved in the cover-up. Either way, you’ve got a number of people in leadership that are guilty in acts that are egregiously terrible.
Pornography is certainly something that ought to be opposed, but watching a consenting adult involved in pornography is not the same thing as a young boy be sodomized by his parish priest and then having the bishop try to cover it up. Both are sinful and wrong (no mortal/venial distinction here), but one of them brings shame on the person involved, the other brings shame and guilt on all those attempting to hide the *crime* (another distinction since not only are priests violating biblical mandates, they are also breaking civil laws created for some of the most deviant of actions).
And this is probably not the conversation you want to talk about the goodness and wisdom of the Church. How wise were its bishops and cardinals to shuffle pedophile’s to different areas to victimize more children? How good is it for the Vatican Bank to be one of the most corrupt banking institutions in the world while Francis pontificates on economics? I’ll admit that the Church’s wisdom and goodness are extraordinary–often extraordinarily awful.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Yep that’s an article of faith. So we already have one such example that cannot ever be offered from your system by its own admission and principles.
Matt. 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” We can keep doing this if you like, but if all it takes is one, there’s one. The problem is that you demand every single statement from the Bible to say “here ye, here ye, here is infallible dogma,” a demand that you quite ironically don’t demand from your own Magisterium. Double standard.
Naturalist or atheistic presuppositions versus theistic presuppositions does not entail one cannot evaluate the credibility of the claims made by Rome, Protestant denomination x, Islam, Scientology, and Mormonism without presupposing the truth of each body’s claims beforehand. And even if one did, some claims are inconsistent and incoherent even granting them – internal critiques are just as valid for evaluating credibility.
I do not deny any of this. The problem is that you all presuppose Rome’s claims before you look at the motives of credibility. Erik has pointed this out regularly. You all ignore all of the things that should fall under these motives that would disprove the church, including such things as the life and holiness of its members. You hold up the isolated saints and ignore the vast masses who are as liberal as the rest of the culture and yet remain in good standing with your church. Not credible.
Why would someone decide to be a Romanist without having engaged the motives of credibility first? That desire just got magically beamed into their brain?
Almost no conversion is based on intellect, it’s all a matter of heart. The heart decides that it needs somebody to hold their hand if it is going to know anything, and then it is predisposed to accept Rome because Rome is willing to be your brain for you. At that point, the motives of credibility become credible. Before that, they’re laughable, so laughable that even Vatican-approved Bible scholars and church historians don’t take them seriously anymore.
If God has spoken clearly, why did you say “I have plenty of faith that the Spirit is guiding the church, and God’s people will get it right over time” – shouldn’t they have gotten it right currently? That’s why I said your second sentence contradicted your first – you’re just affirming semper reformanda while at the same time saying ” I need to know right now what is true because I am living right now.” which seems inconsistent.
God’s people still sin. That’s why they don’t get it right the first time. I’ve had Romanists admit to me that the church does not understand its own teaching every time it claims to. That is clearly obvious. It’s why you can have LG and US. But what it does prove is that nobody accurately knew what US meant, and that you don’t know whether LG might get applied in some way contrary to the way you currently apply it. Once you let the Magisterium do all the hard work for you, you yourself can know only what the Magisterium knows, and the Magisterium has sometimes thought itself infallible when it hasn’t been.
LikeLike
lame fox, but the problem is that for you to know when the pope is infallible he needs to conform to a higher standard of truth — he can’t change doctrine. But Bryan says that Douthat’s understanding of the-pope-can’t-change doctrine is a Protestant view.
So, like, don’t you know what your church teaches? Or like, what’s the big deal with us being confused when you guys with the one pope are not on the one page.
LikeLike
Once you let the Magisterium do all the hard work for you, you yourself can know only what the Magisterium knows, and the Magisterium has sometimes thought itself infallible when it hasn’t been.
No, it’s worse than that. Once only the magisterium can know or declare something infallibly, then the papist can’t know anything infallible or true because they are not the magisterium. Further, neither can they be sure – because they are not the magisterium – if it really is the magisterium that is telling them something that they could consequently claim to even know. Never mind if it is infallible or true. Which is to double down on a vicious skepticism, that despicably only applies to prots if the disciples of Veron had their way.
IOW the CIP is self defeating, if not internally conflicted bigtime, regardless of the last ditch appeal to the Motives of Credulity as a stop gap measure in order to establish a degree of epistemological certainty. But not the infallible certainty which is Rome’s standard when it comes to grilling protestant truth claims. Pot, kettle, toilet bowl?
Of course if you take it all on faith and believe what the church teaches, even when it is not known or even knowable what the church teaches then it all comes out in purgatory/all bets are off/ everything comes up roses and “nothing you have said falsifies what I have said”.
To be sure St. Humpty Dumpty’s down with that, as is Ignatius of Loyola and his chief understudy in training over here venting the party ideology and the jesuit dialectic.
(And your job, little grasshopper is to stand around amazed and dumbfounded at the audacity of these sophomores, which they will then take as a tantamount surrender to their superior Pyrhonic paradigm.
If not that anything short of waving the white flag will be considered question begging by your new intellectual masters.
Ciao.)
LikeLike
@Cletus —
I don’t know that they avoid questions evaluating the inerrancy of scripture. I think they would classify inerrancy as a purely theological claim, they wouldn’t argue that a neutrally disposed observer would conclude that scripture is inerrant. That would be the equivalent of the historical claims the CtC apologetic makes. Time and time again CtC says stuff that they know to be unquestionably false about history. I don’t know that the Old Lifers do that regarding scripture.
FWIW for conservative Christians I’d say the Old Lifers do a pretty good job of meeting me halfway when discussing scripture. For example about 4 months back here we had a discussion of 1John. I argued the position that 1John was much earlier (20-200 years earlier) than Gospel of John and not the same person, that the author of 1John didn’t believe in an earthly Jesus, that the author’s sect was still within the realm of fringe Hellenistic Judaism arguing against non-mainstream Hellenistic Judaism (i.e. neither side were remotely close to creedal Christians)…. Pretty strong unfiltered atheist case: no human founder, no supernatural events, standard sect evolution…. I was allowed to present it, and was treated respectfully when doing so.
Certainly there was some sarcasm. The argument got mathematical when we discussed a legitimate argument from silence (interestingly far better than the criteria on CtC on the same topic reply to Brandon II.B.1.b). Long winded complicated so I’d say people were more bored than offended. But I’ve had other scriptural discussions here with good results. They get that they can’t assume Calvinism when talking to an atheist about scripture, that is they see their scriptural claims as conditional.
LikeLike
Susan – There would be work to clean it up, if the church were corrupt to its core
Erik – Work by who? Has the clergy ever asked the laity for help cleaning up the church?
And all those kids being abused wasn’t enough for the laity to jump in?
LikeLike
Susan – Yes, there is corruption in the Church, but what do you “do” when there are so many goods? In the same way that bad things hurt its credibility doesn’t its extraordinary wisdom and goodness commend it?
Erik – You take the good with you and leave the bad behind. Basically what Martin Luther did.
And the “good” that is not warranted by Scripture is just commandments of men — what we would call “pious advice”. You can do it or not do it as you choose, but your conscience is not bound.
LikeLike
Susan – How many Protestant men are there who have addictions to porn, that no one knows about?
Erik – We’re not talking about laymen with the abuse scandal, we’re talking about clergy. Clergy with serious sexual sin should be removed from the ministry, although looking at pornography is not as severe as sexually abusing someone, at least as far as the immediate impact on the life of a victim is concerned.
If URCNA Consistories and OPC Sessions start moving sex offenders from congregation to congregation you’ll have an apples to apples comparison. The one URCNA sex offender minister I know of recently reported to prison. He was removed from ministry posthaste as soon as his consistory knew about his sin.
LikeLike
If the Vatican returns Jozef Wesolowski to the Domincan Republic to be punished, you’ll know that they’re getting serious about sexual abuse:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2014/06/27/Ex-Vatican-ambassador-to-Dominican-Republic-convicted-of-sex-abuse-defrocked-.html
LikeLike
Clete – Why would someone decide to be a Romanist without having engaged the motives of credibility first? That desire just got magically beamed into their brain?
Erik – Because they’re at the end of the line theologically and this is their last shot. A “Hail Mary”, If you will (hey, I made a pun).
LikeLike
I think Susan is very well meaning with everything she does here. I think her conversion was largely based on a strong desire to have someone make a strong claim to authority and give her the answers on questions that so many disagree about.
To being frustrated with so many people offering so many different answers I would say, “that’s life”. Mature people make their peace with that. We’re aliens and strangers here — pilgrims on the way. Most of the people we encounter will end up disappointing us, most of the purported answers we’re given will turn out to be wrong.
The Bible is an amazing book, though, and God always gives us just enough through it to sustain us.
LikeLike
Bob,
“No, it’s worse than that. Once only the magisterium can know or declare something infallibly, then the papist can’t know anything infallible or true because they are not the magisterium.”
This does not follow. Just because I’m fallible does not entail there cannot ever be an authority that can define/identify infallible articles of faith in principle. Such thinking undermines Christ’s and the Apostle’s claims – this would make NT believers who submitted to Christ/Apostle’s authority no different than those who submitted to random Jew’s authority claiming no infallibility. So no the “CIP” is not self-defeating, nor is it a double-standard when in discussion with examining Protestant truth claims.
Robert,
“You all ignore all of the things that should fall under these motives that would disprove the church, including such things as the life and holiness of its members. You hold up the isolated saints and ignore the vast masses who are as liberal as the rest of the culture and yet remain in good standing with your church.”
It would disprove the church if the church ever claimed that liberal members or poor discipline cannot exist in its ranks.
“Almost no conversion is based on intellect, it’s all a matter of heart. The heart decides that it needs somebody to hold their hand if it is going to know anything, and then it is predisposed to accept Rome because Rome is willing to be your brain for you. At that point, the motives of credibility become credible. Before that, they’re laughable, so laughable that even Vatican-approved Bible scholars and church historians don’t take them seriously anymore.”
I see. So no converts in history wrote intellectual arguments in support of their conversion, just bosom-burning. You’re also just hand-waving away the claim to have divine authority/ability to define articles of faith as a motive of credibility in and of itself (e.g. as a winnowing process to rule out candidates). And it’s odd that so much has been written from your side for 500 years if it’s so laughable. Protestantism’s claims are laughable. Convinced?
“God’s people still sin. That’s why they don’t get it right the first time.”
So you can’t satisfy your “need to know right now which is true because I am living right now” by your own principles. As I said, inconsistent.
LikeLike
Bob: “No, it’s worse than that. Once only the magisterium can know or declare something infallibly, then the papist can’t know anything infallible or true because they are not the magisterium.”
10 points for Gryffindor, Bob.
Cletus: This does not follow. Just because I’m fallible does not entail there cannot ever be an authority that can define/identify infallible articles of faith in principle.
You missed his point. The CtC apologetic is that, Sure the Bible is true and infallible — but you Protestants can’t know what it means because you don’t have an infallible interpreter.
Bob’s point is that, Sure you (claim to) have an infallible interpreter — but you can’t infallibly interpret that interpreter’s words, so you are in no better shape.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Protestantism rejects the ability to define/identify articles of faith. RCism does not. The CtC apologetic is that nothing ever rises or can rise above provisional opinion in Protestantism by the nature of its claims/principles.
That has nothing to do with anyone’s fallible interpretation, just as one’s fallible interpretation of Christ/Apostle’s teachings after submitting to their authority in NT times did not entail they were in no better shape than the guy submitting to a random Jew’s authority offering his provisional opinion of OT teaching.
LikeLike
It’s not obvious that your response has any meaning.
What is the difference between “provisional opinion” and “fallible interpretation”?
LikeLike
Susan,
You asked how many protestant men have porn addictions, etc… One should note that Roman Catholics are more likely to support gay rights and liberal divorce laws than protestants as a whole (not just conservative ones). Indeed, in the US RCs are to the left of America as whole on ssm and divorce. Similarly, on an international level, the larger the share of the population is RC, the more supportive that nation is of SSM and divorce.
If the teaching from the RC church is so great, why are protestants more likely to believe it? Perhaps there are structural problems with the RCC?
LikeLike
That’s funny, our Anglican friends have 39 of them.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted November 6, 2014 at 10:14 am | Permalink
It is the cover up by bishops (read infallibile magisterium).
That’s inaccurate to the point of being a lie, Dr. Mr. Historian.
LikeLike
DGHART,
Once you learn what a mortal sin actually is (and what the conditions are for a sin to be mortal) you will understand why there is no contradiction between the two quotations you provided.
LikeLike
sbd,
This whole paragraph is a massive expression of “begging the question”. What constitutes a “Church Council”? What makes the “victors” declaration that those councils were invalid untrue and post-hoc? This is why Bryan has to continue to give you all lessons in logic. You can’t just sling assertions everywhere without backing them up. In any case, the point that I was trying to make is very simple. The triumphalist attitude towards the synod is silly once we compare the present controversy to other times of confusion in Church history. There has always been sin, dissent, ignorance, corruption, etc. The RC apologetic is not that the magesterium *prevents* these situations but that it *solves* them. Thus, any argument on your part that involves pointing out the current *existence* of dissent, sin, ignorance, corruption, etc. accomplishes nothing. Every communion has to put up with this stuff. The difference is in how we *resolve* these issues. We choose the magesterium and the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. You choose schism and division. To each his own.
But why? In what way does the sin of the hierarchy diminish the credibility of a divinely protected institution? Does the sin of Peter take a sledgehammer to the credibility to his ministry? Do we need an asterisk on the books of Mark, 1 & 2 Peter? Paul claimed he was the “chief of all sinners”…. is his credibility ruined? Obviously not. The apostles were credible despite their short comings due to the divine protection and inspiration that guided them. In the same way, the Church is credible, despite our shortcomings, because we are a divinely established and protected institution.
Unsupported assertion.
unsupported assertion.
unsupported assertion
I am. Thank you. 🙂
LikeLike
Kenneth,
But why? In what way does the sin of the hierarchy diminish the credibility of a divinely protected institution? Does the sin of Peter take a sledgehammer to the credibility to his ministry? Do we need an asterisk on the books of Mark, 1 & 2 Peter? Paul claimed he was the “chief of all sinners”…. is his credibility ruined? Obviously not. The apostles were credible despite their short comings due to the divine protection and inspiration that guided them. In the same way, the Church is credible, despite our shortcomings, because we are a divinely established and protected institution.
But the Apostles were protected whenever they taught on anything. Rome denies this for itself.
Peter and Paul also repented. They didn’t call for the execution of those with whom they disagreed, assume control of the government, shunt child molesting priests to other dioceses, deny marriage to elders, run a corrupt bank, or anything else.
LikeLike
Erik,
I am asking no such thing. I am merely pointing out that we put proper weight on the evidence in accordance with its relevance. I am not suggesting that the current controversy is *unimportant*, but only that it is *irrelevant* to *our* conversations. Until the gates of hell prevail and dogma is reversed there is really nothing to talk about unless you just want to *speculate* that this might *finally* be the time that the Church stumbles.
This further illustrates my point. What weight should the “sins of the hierarchy” be given when evaluating Roman Catholic claims? What if Peter, instead of denying Christ three times, had protected a pedophile? Would that be the end of his credibility as an apostle? Which sin gets exactly how much weight in these kinds of conversations? I would argue that it is an irrelevant question. Either Peter was inspired or he wasnt. Either the Church was established by Christ or it wasn’t. The sins of the hierarchy do not factor into this evaluation all that much.
Thats true. We do need to have something to say. The answer is this: the gates of hell will not prevail.
LikeLike
Robert,
I would like to provide the appropriate sound effect for this comment. Pleas enjoy.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Protestantism rejects the ability to define/identify articles of faith. RCism does not. The CtC apologetic is that nothing ever rises or can rise above provisional opinion in Protestantism by the nature of its claims/principles. That has nothing to do with anyone’s fallible interpretation,
As long as you aren’t the Magisterium, then you have to be consistent and admit that nothing you say about Rome ever rises above your provisional opinion. It has everything to do with one’s fallible interpretation. Your radical skepticism aims to destroy faith in divine revelation so that it can be replaced with men infallibly but nobody is quite sure when. But that’s supposed to be okay because you said that you believe everything the Roman Church teaches even if you don’t know everything the Roman Church teaches. Somehow Protestants only have provisional opinions of Scripture, but your opinion of the Magisterium isn’t provisional. Nice trick. Why aren’t you the pope?
You build a house on sand and admit things that even Rome doesn’t, such that Mormons are more credible than Protestants. You build a case where at the end of the day all you can say is, “well we’re just as good as Joseph Smith because both of us claim infallibility. We can trust the polytheistic charlatan who had multiple wives and went around with a divining rod more than we can trust Luther or Calvin who share our beliefs in the Trinity, et al.” It’s absolutely ridiculous.
And all this just so you can put your head on your pillow at night and say “I thank God I am not like those poor Protestants. If only they were in as good a shape as me, the Ayatollah, Joseph Smith, and crazy Earl the prophet.”
That has nothing to do with anyone’s fallible interpretation, just as one’s fallible interpretation of Christ/Apostle’s teachings after submitting to their authority in NT times did not entail they were in no better shape than the guy submitting to a random Jew’s authority offering his provisional opinion of OT teaching.
Well if this is so, then we’re great, since we submit to the authority of Christ and Apostles. What we deny is that Rome has the authority of Christ and the Apostles.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Nice. Meanwhile, those of us who actually want to put some thought into our religion will ask for all of Rome’s infallible teachings and not shirk our responsibility to study so that we might be approved.
LikeLike
lame fox, “Protestantism rejects the ability to define/identify articles of faith.”
Does not.
LikeLike
Robert,
Dont just ask for them. *submit* to them too. Bend the knee. Kiss the ring peasant boy. You are too smart and sincere for the Protestant revolt.
LikeLike
loser ken, “Does the sin of Peter take a sledgehammer to the credibility to his ministry?”
But holy writ tells us that Paul told
the popePeter he was wrong. Where has anyone in the history of your church told your popes that they were wrong? And if they were wrong, how do YOU know when the bishops are right or wrong? Your infallible interpreter only knows for sure. He might say he’s interpreting correctly. But he could be wrong, as you concede. So what good is all this except to make some anti-Cartesian point.Woo hoo. You win philosophical treats.
LikeLike
loser ken, ” the gates of hell will not prevail.”
How about Francis?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted November 6, 2014 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
loser ken, ” the gates of hell will not prevail.”
How about Francis?
You still don’t understand the magisterium concept.
Actually, I think you do, which makes this a charade and all the more painful. You keep playing the papal infallibility card, but that dates back only to
As it turns out, the gates of Augsburg, Geneva and the Tower of London have not prevailed against it. Although they have prevailed against each other. Catholicism continues to prevail.
“Protestantism” is a Tower of Babel. So is Reformed theology, Presbyterianism, and so and on and so on, atomizing further and further, incapable of unity.
The more you write and cheat the argument, Darryl, the more obvious it becomes.
LikeLike
DGHART,
ut holy writ tells us that Paul told the pope Peter he was wrong. Where has anyone in the history of your church told your popes that they were wrong? And if they were wrong,
Well now this is interesting. Robert just got done telling me how the apostles were ALWAYS inspired and protected from error whenever they taught anything. Yall should huddle up and get on the same page. Or maybe there is a (gasp!) distinction and nuance involved when It comes to discipline and dogma?
Btw…. Cardinals and bishops have been telling the Pope that he is wrong very recently….. Or havent you been paying attention?
LikeLike
Btw…. Cardinals and bishops have been telling the Pope that he is wrong very recently….. Or havent you been paying attention?
And what is amazing is that you think Francis is listening. Meanwhile he keeps running his mouth, embracing Protestants as true Christians, embracing Word of Faith heretics as having legitimate apostolic succession, talking about how he can’t judge practicing homosexuals who are in the church, etc., etc.
LikeLike
Robert,
I think it is cute when protestants label other protestants as “heretics”. How very radtrad of you.
LikeLike
Kenneth Winsmann
Posted November 6, 2014 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
DGHART,
ut holy writ tells us that Paul told the pope Peter he was wrong. Where has anyone in the history of your church told your popes that they were wrong? And if they were wrong,
Well now this is interesting. Robert just got done telling me how the apostles were ALWAYS inspired and protected from error whenever they taught anything. Yall should huddle up and get on the same page. Or maybe there is a (gasp!) distinction and nuance involved when It comes to discipline and dogma?
Btw…. Cardinals and bishops have been telling the Pope that he is wrong very recently….. Or havent you been paying attention?
Ah, somebody gets the magisterium. It’s not a monarchy. And Francis has only opened discussion. He has not endorsed any new doctrine. Perhaps he’s smoking out unsound arguments.
That’s why I read Old Life, although they smoke themselves out. [I offer them a match now & then, just to keep things burning.]
LikeLike
Disagreeing with my premise is not begging the question. I know Bryan likes to assert otherwise, but he is mistaken. Perhaps my premise is incorrect. If so correct me.
If we can’t come up with a definition of what constitutes a valid council a the time of the council, then we are left with painting a bulls-eye where our arrow lands. If we only know that the council was legitimate after the fact because the council’s declarations are(n’t) orthodox (i.e. post-hoc), then you are judging that council by some other standard. If the councils are inconsistent (some support Arianism and others don’t), then there has to be some other standard you are appealing to determine which is orthodox. The reformed position is that the councils are only as valid insofar as they are consistent with scripture following the example of Jesus’s use of the OT scriptures – there was no infallible magisterium or pope. This did not diminish the authority of the religious rulers of the day. Indeed, Jesus told the people to submit to these authorities. But the authorities and their traditions were not infallible. While they served as the repository of scripture, they were a fallible authority. Yet Jesus drew on those scriptures authoritatively. It is not clear to me why your criticism of the protestantism would not also apply to Jesus’s use of scripture.
Unsupported assertion (two can play at that game!).
Except that your magisterium doesn’t *solve* these problems. I’ve presented you evidence that your church is not more unified than protestants. You claimed I was making up stuff up, then you claimed that I didn’t know what I was talking about, then you claimed these facts weren’t relevant. The members of your church are less orthodox than protestants on core dogmatic issues – domestically and internationally. In what way has the magisterium solved anything? Your doctors and priests still dissent and your laity more or less reject it (well more than prots anyway).
You’re begging the questionI disagree that the church is divinely protected from falling into error. Not prevailing doesn’t mean there aren’t setbacks and need for reform.Paul, the chief of sinners, tells his listeners to imitate him. Do you really think Law, Mahoney, or Nienstedt or the clerics who celebrate them in Rome could say such a thing? I don’t. So why should I trust anything else they have to say. It is not that they were drawn from a pool of miscreants and have reformed their ways. They are presently abusing they position. Paul laid out his credentials. Even the Bereans didn’t trust Paul, but tested everything he said against the scriptures (and were commended for it). Jesus told the disciples that the world would know they were his disciples by their love. I see no such evidence from the hierarchy of your church – the lies and abuse of your bishops and cardinals is too widespread. You are right that the source of apostolic credibility was the Holy Spirit, but the evidence of their credibility included their holiness.
If you want to engage in the sort of sophistry that the CtC folks wallow in, have at it…it’s a free country. Intellectual wannabes may confuse it with erudition, but I don’t find it compelling. In the meantime (re?)read your Kuhn and figure out what a paradigm really is, then perhaps expand your reading of Catholic writers and get a better grasp of the breadth of theological opinion that exists in your own church. I found Bas van Fraassen’s Terry Lectures valuable. While his focus is philosophy of science, his take on religious knowledge is quite fascinating. Indeed, I think a proper constructive empiricist approach to knowledge works quite well for religious knowledge – it accounts for the accumulation of positive knowledge by fallible observers of infallible data.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I think it is cute when protestants label other protestants as “heretics”. How very radtrad of you.
It’s kind of like how you tell us that the Magisterium makes things so clear and certain and then complain about Vatican 2.
LikeLike
This does not follow. Just because I’m fallible does not entail there cannot ever be an authority that can define/identify infallible articles of faith in principle.
As per Jeff’s, pay attention/never said it did C. What I did say is that because you are fallible you can never certainly know certainty according to your very own beloved paradigm. You can never infallibly/truly know the infallible articles of faith that the magisterium has identified, because you are not the infallible magisterium. The same sophistry that cooks the goose, roasts the gander. Rome wants the vicious skepticism routine to only run one way in the conversation.
Vide Bryan’s recent efforts to patronize Brandon’s “scenario”. The barque of St. Peter has run aground on the shoals of his personal popish judgement with its sails a flappin’ in the breeze, all the while he’s hollerin’ tu quo que for all his skepticism’s worth.
Such thinking undermines Christ’s and the Apostle’s claims –
No, it undermines the suppressed premise, if not outspoken boast, that the Roman magisterium is on the order/level of Christ and the Apostles. But who are we going to believe? Rome? Or Christ and the Apostles? To ask is to answer. We are reformed catholic protestants. A pox on Rome’s despicable blasphemies, whether they be its claims to infallibility or the ability to re-sacrifice Christ in the mass, if not re-engineer the gospel to mean faith and works.
this would make NT believers who submitted to Christ/Apostle’s authority no different than those who submitted to random Jew’s authority claiming no infallibility.
If you insist on arguing for the Roman Catholic Incoherence Paradigm, that’s your business, but the bait and switch in equating Christ and the apostles with the Roman church is a gross non sequitur, regardless that Bryan will start hyperventilating about question begging. For all his pother about ecclesiastical deism, he never admitted that performatively the Bible is a dead letter for the CIP, while prots still think, Matthew 4:4 will never go out of style.
So no the “CIP” is not self-defeating, nor is it a double-standard when in discussion with examining Protestant truth claims.
In 25 words or less:
1. What is the CIP? 2. What is the PIP? 3.What is a valid syllogism/argument? (Hint, talk to Mr. Lessons in Logic hisself or his PR man in training, the Winsome Sophist. 4. Can Incoherence (see above) be Interpreted Infallibly? Intelligent Idiots want to know and interact accordingly.
LikeLike
loser ken, so how do you know which cardinals or bishops are right? If the whole CTC apologetic rests on epistemological superiority, it sure looks to me like the papal paradigm leaves you guys worse off than Protestantism. At least we have a Bible. You need a program to know which characters are the good ones.
LikeLike
Robert, there’s loser ken’s tell. When he doesn’t have a defense, point at how Protestants disagree.
LikeLike
loser ken, don’t you take great encouragement from vd, t, a guy who understands the infallibility of the magisterium and the truth it expounds and doesn’t go to church?
LikeLike
Odd how the converts counsel patience and acceptance, while cradles (plus Douthat) are nervous. Here’s another “it’ll-be-alright.”
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Francis is doing what post-Vatican 2 pontiffs do:
LikeLike
The Vatican Bank goes Protestant:
Follow the money. Tetzel sold indulgences. Luther called for reform. Protestantism vindicated.
LikeLike
Kenneth – Unsupported assertion.
unsupported assertion.
unsupported assertion
Erik – Look who’s been sitting at Bryan’s feet.
LikeLike
Kenneth – What if Peter, instead of denying Christ three times, had protected a pedophile? Would that be the end of his credibility as an apostle?
Erik – Yes. Note the qualifications that the Bible gives us for pastors & elders.
If I’m a church elder with an orthodox set of beliefs who also happens to have a massive porn stash on my computer, am I a qualified elder?
You make the mistake of looking at what people say they believe as opposed to what their actions reveal about what they believe. You’re young, though.
LikeLike
Kenneth – Thats true. We do need to have something to say. The answer is this: the gates of hell will not prevail.
Erik – This is like me banging my thumb with a hammer and insisting that no one can hurt me. Yeah, but I just banged my own thumb with a hammer.
LikeLike
Tom – Catholicism continues to prevail.
Erik – Just not enough to get Tom out of bed on Sunday morning.
Tom refutes himself yet again.
LikeLike
Kenneth – Btw…. Cardinals and bishops have been telling the Pope that he is wrong very recently….. Or havent you been paying attention?
Erik – When Douthat does this, Bryan says he’s acting like a Protestant. Are the Cardinals and bishops acting like Protestants?
You & Bryan need to get on the same page.
LikeLike
@Michael
Let me know, if you would, when this thread reaches the 782 as we did in This guy needs his own blog (part II). I have many blogs I need to go comment on my own posts, it’s not easy, you know. If you want the lay of the land here at OL, I suggest reading very closely the comments by Doug Sowers at that link, take as long as you need, I think you will find it a rewarding task. I want to hear your thoughts on those, as well.
Nice to meet you, that’s a good first post if you are new here (can’t say I’ve heard from you before).
ForeLikeLike
Jeff,
Here’s what you said “Sure you (claim to) have an infallible interpreter — but you can’t infallibly interpret that interpreter’s words, so you are in no better shape.”
Because everyone fallibly interprets does not entail everyone is in the same shape. Do you say the NT believer who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher of the OT is in no better shape than the NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter? If not, why given the above criticism? So it goes with Bob’s assertion that the “CtC apologetic” is self-refuting.
Darryl/sdb,
“Protestantism rejects the ability to define/identify articles of faith.”
“That’s funny, our Anglican friends have 39 of them.”
“Does not”
Are articles of faith infallible or not? If not, then sure you guys have oodles of them. If they are – which I would think they must be by definition – then no of course you don’t. Semper reformanda and sdb’s “I disagree that the church is divinely protected from falling into error.”
Robert,
“As long as you aren’t the Magisterium, then you have to be consistent and admit that nothing you say about Rome ever rises above your provisional opinion. It has everything to do with one’s fallible interpretation. Your radical skepticism aims to destroy faith in divine revelation””
So I guess NT believers must have admitted nothing they said about Christ/Apostles teaching ever rises above their provisional opinion and they are in the same boat as if they were submitting to a random Jewish teacher freely admitting he is offering provisional interpretation/teaching as he lacks divine and infallible authority.
I have no radical skepticism. Semper reformanda is radical skepticism. You have to identify divine revelation first. I don’t see why you would have any problem with a non-believer Jew in the NT time parroting your argument against believers who submitted to Christ/Apostles authority.
“Somehow Protestants only have provisional opinions of Scripture”
It’s not “somehow” – it’s what you and your confessions explicitly claim.
“You build a house on sand”
No more building on a house of sand than NT believers who recognized the claims to authority Christ/Apostles were making and submitted to them. People who submitted to teachers making no such claims (actively rejecting such claims) would indeed be building on a house of sand by definition, and irrationally doing so.
“and admit things that even Rome doesn’t, such that Mormons are more credible than Protestants. …It’s absolutely ridiculous.”
Mormonism make the claim to so they can at least get of the gate to be considered. Bodies rejecting the claim don’t even get out of the gate – why should they by their own admitted principles? Evaluation of the credibility of the bodies making those claims is a separate issue and stage. You could invert the stages if you like but outcome remains the same.
“Well if this is so, then we’re great, since we submit to the authority of Christ and Apostles. What we deny is that Rome has the authority of Christ and the Apostles.”
Yes you deny it. And your denial demonstrates that everyone’s harping on “same shape” fallible interpretation or the “CtC apologetic” as inconsistent is unjustified and a smokescreen from the real issue.
Bob,
“What I did say is that because you are fallible you can never certainly know certainty according to your very own beloved paradigm.”
I can know certainly just as much as NT believers under Christ/Apostles authority could know certainly, as compared to those who submitted to random Jew teaching the OT and not claiming infallibility or irreformable teaching. In both cases, the followers are fallible, but they are not in the same shape. That’s why your “CtC apologetic is self-refuting” criticism flounders.
“You can never infallibly/truly know the infallible articles of faith that the magisterium has identified because you are not the infallible magisterium.”
Sure I can know articles of faith RCC has defined even though I’m fallible. The Assumption is one. The claim to have divine authority to be able to define infallible articles of faith in the first place is another (the critical one).
“Rome wants the vicious skepticism routine to only run one way in the conversation.”
No, Rome is merely applying Protestantism’s own principles and standards. By its own standards, it rejects the authority/ability to define articles of faith (these are infallible since it has to be spelled out apparently) – thus it leads to radical skepticism all on its own.
“No, it undermines the suppressed premise, if not outspoken boast, that the Roman magisterium is on the order/level of Christ and the Apostles.”
Bingo. You deny Rome’s claim to have that authority. But that is different than the criticism that Rome’s claims put no one in better shape than anyone else because we are all fallible interpreters. That would make the kind of authority being claimed completely irrelevant and superfluous, but you obviously don’t think that, thus showing that the criticism of “we all fallibly interpret” is a smokescreen.
LikeLike
Tom’s warmth towards Rome can only be explained by the fact that the tonsure is the only hairstyle in the history of man worse than the mullet.
They bailed him out.
LikeLike
You don’t get it, CVD
Prots can and do infallibly know that one of the infallible articles of the Christian faith is that Scripture is infallible. IOW we can know something truly/infallibly even though we are not sucking at Rome’s teat. Sola Scriptura = Justification of Knowledge.
But one of Rome’s infallible articles of faith is that prots cannot know any infallible articles of faith because they are not members of the papist club. (Substitute Sola Ecclesia for the above.)
Then we get Romanists such as yourself on the one hand inconsistently appealing to our fallible prot private judgement in order to coax us into believing this infallible
contradictiontruth when only a blind leap of faith can bridge the abyss/dilemma/paradigm-mongering.Go figure.
But the center cannot hold. A blind faith is not a biblical faith and hence it is a fideistic faith in faith.
And prots no buy/believe that phony bill of goods.
You’d be a lot more consistent if you just came over here and commanded us in the name of St. Bryan to repent and believe in the one name given by which we must be saved, St. Peter. (Because we’re not sure on the shelf life for St. Francis yet.)
LikeLike
lame fox, “Are articles of faith infallible or not? If not, then sure you guys have oodles of them.”
Really lame.
All that infallibility and only two articles that are infallible — 1) bodily assumption of Mary and — wait for it — 2) infallibility itself.
LikeLike
Tom: As it turns out, the gates of Augsburg, Geneva and the Tower of London have not prevailed against it. Although they have prevailed against each other. Catholicism continues to prevail.
Speaking of revealing things, is this a formal admission?
LikeLike
JRC: Sure you (claim to) have an infallible interpreter — but you can’t infallibly interpret that interpreter’s words, so you are in no better shape.
CVD: Because everyone fallibly interprets does not entail everyone is in the same shape. Do you say the NT believer who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher of the OT is in no better shape than the NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter?
NT believers did not claim certainty for themselves. You do.
That’s the entire point of the apologetic: “I used to be uncertain about the content of the faith. When I embraced Catholicism, I finally arrived at certainty.”
But in fact, you don’t have certainty. Instead, you have your own fallible understanding of what you believe to be infallible teaching. Your situation is precisely identical to the Protestant inerrantist’s position.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to take a survey of Catholic intellectuals and see how many lead with this “superior paradigm” trope. I think we would find it to be rather unique to prot converts to Catholicism. I’ve never picked up a hint of it from Buckley.
As a cradle he talks more about the resurrection of Christ and the “inertia” that results from being born into a Catholic family.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Bryan called and said you just committed the Tu quoque.
He demands 20 hail Mary’s as penance.
LikeLike
Erik: Tu first.
LikeLike
If the scriptures say that all scripture is God breathed, who gets to authenticate that this saying is true?
http://www.ewtn.com/tv/live/journeyhome.asp
LikeLike
Cletus,
I guess NT believers must have admitted nothing they said about Christ/Apostles teaching ever rises above their provisional opinion and they are in the same boat as if they were submitting to a random Jewish teacher freely admitting he is offering provisional interpretation/teaching as he lacks divine and infallible authority.
Again, the unspoken assumption is that Rome is on the same level as Christ and the Apostles even though you all formally deny that she has the same inspiration and authority. So the parallel is relevant how? Start raising the dead and then maybe we can talk.
I have no radical skepticism. Semper reformanda is radical skepticism. You have to identify divine revelation first. I don’t see why you would have any problem with a non-believer Jew in the NT time parroting your argument against believers who submitted to Christ/Apostles authority.
Hmm. Amazing that consistent confessional Protestants who believe in radical skepticism know that homosexuality is wrong on the first pass and don’t have to be corrected by a slim majority of others.
As Bob quite rightly points out, you have to identify divine revelation as well. And you ain’t fallible. So we can trust your fallible judgment that Rome is the church Jesus founded but I can’t trust my fallible judgment that the canon is correct. Do you realize how much of a cult leader you sound like?
It’s not “somehow” – it’s what you and your confessions explicitly claim.
As long as I am a finite creature, all of my beliefs are somewhat provisional because I am not omniscient and cannot see how all things fit together. I’m a creature. So are you. All you have is your provisional interpretation of what Rome has said, and Rome ain’t clear on whether at the present I’m going to heaven or not. Why in the world am I going to think she’ll ever be a help if she can’t answer that basic question?
No more building on a house of sand than NT believers who recognized the claims to authority Christ/Apostles were making and submitted to them. People who submitted to teachers making no such claims (actively rejecting such claims) would indeed be building on a house of sand by definition, and irrationally doing so.
Except I do recognize the claims to authority Christ/Apostles make and submit to them. Apparently in your opinion, I am less justified in doing so because Christ and the Apostles aren’t standing next to me, so I have to have a bunch of living human beings in my own generation who I can see and touch and who tell me to believe in Christ in order for me to be justified in trusting Christ and the Apostles. And here I thought Rome rejected radical empiricism.
Your problem isn’t with Protestant claims about infallibility. Your problem is that you think it is inherently impossible that God could design things to rule His church via a book. I don’t think it is inherently impossible that God could design things to run his church via some infallible people in Rome. I just see absolutely no evidence for it.
Mormonism make the claim to so they can at least get of the gate to be considered. Bodies rejecting the claim don’t even get out of the gate – why should they by their own admitted principles? Evaluation of the credibility of the bodies making those claims is a separate issue and stage. You could invert the stages if you like but outcome remains the same.
If you want to keep admitting that the president of the Mormon Church is as authoritative and trustworthy as the pope simply because he claims to be, that might get you to rethink your apologetic. But since you guys are trending universalist anyway, I’m not holding my breath.
Yes you deny it. And your denial demonstrates that everyone’s harping on “same shape” fallible interpretation or the “CtC apologetic” as inconsistent is unjustified and a smokescreen from the real issue.
Not a smokescreen. You guys presume to attack Protestantism via a radical skepticism that says unless someone makes a claim to be infallible, you have know way of knowing whether our personal interpretation is opinion or not. You are in the same boat when you apply it consistently. You have no way of knowing whether your interpretation of Rome is provisional opinion or actually correct. And when we look at Rome and see the utter lack of discipline of people who you might claim to be heretics, you actually have far less ability to know truth than any Protestant might have.
IOW, at the end of the day I am left with my fallible interpretation of an infallible source and you are left with your fallible interpretation of an infallible source. You just claim your source is a lot bigger, though no one can tell us how big.
LikeLike
Susan,
If the scriptures say that all scripture is God breathed, who gets to authenticate that this saying is true?
If the church says that the church is infallible, who gets to authenticate the church?
LikeLike
“Here then we have two serious disqualifications in the case of the multitude of men, which must discourage those who are in any measure humble and cautious, from {158} attempting to rely on their own unassisted powers in interpreting Scripture, if they can avoid it. Scripture is not so distinct in its announcements, as readers are morally or intellectually slow in receiving them. And if any one thinks that this avowal is derogatory to Scripture, I answer that Scripture was never intended to teach doctrine to the many; and if it was not given with this object, it argues no imperfection in it that it does not fulfil it.
I repeat it; while Scripture is written by inspired men, with one and one only view of doctrine in their hearts and thoughts, even the Truth which was from the beginning, yet being written not to instruct in doctrine, but for those who were already instructed in it, not with direct announcements but with intimations and implications of the faith, the qualifications for rightly apprehending it are so rare and high, that a prudent man, to say nothing of piety, will not risk his salvation on the chance of his having them; but will read it with the aid of those subsidiary guides which ever have been supplied as if to meet our need. I would not deny as an abstract proposition that a Christian may gain the whole truth from the Scriptures, but would maintain that the chances are very seriously against a given individual. I would not deny, rather I maintain that a religious, wise, and intellectually gifted man will succeed: but who answers to this description but the collective Church? There, indeed such qualifications might be supposed to exist; what is wanting in one member being supplied by another, and the opposite errors of individuals eliminated by their combination. The Church Catholic may be truly said almost infallibly to interpret Scripture aright, though from the possession of past tradition, and amid the divisions of the time present, perhaps at no period in the course of the Dispensation has she had the need and the opportunity of interpreting it for herself. Neither would I deny that individuals, whether {159} from height of holiness, clearness of intellectual vision, or the immediate power of the Holy Ghost, have been and are able to penetrate through the sacred text into some portions of the divine system beyond, without external help from tradition, authority of doctors, and theology; though since that help has ever been given, as to the Church, so to the individual, it is difficult to prove that the individual has performed what the Church has never attempted. None, however, it would seem, but a complete and accurately moulded Christian, such as the world has never or scarcely seen, would be able to bring out harmoniously and perspicuously the divine characters in full, which lie hid from mortal eyes within the inspired letter of the revelation. And this, by the way, may be taken as one remarkable test, or at least characteristic of error, in the various denominations of religion which surround us; none of them embraces the whole Bible, none of them is able to interpret the whole, none of them has a key which will revolve through the entire compass of the wards which lie within. Each has its favourite text, and neglects the rest. None can solve the great secret and utter the mystery of its pages. One makes trial, then another: but one and all in turn are foiled. They retire, as the sages of Babylon, and make way for Daniel. The Church Catholic, the true Prophet of God, alone is able to tell the dream and its interpretation.” Blessed John Henry Newman
LikeLike
Susan, that’s easy — heard of the Holy Ghost?
LikeLike
Susan, this same blessed Newman?
LikeLike
Susan,
Not EWTN with that horrendous set.
LikeLike
The Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Susan,
If God did not want us mere men interpreting Scripture, surely he would have put one of those “Do not try this at home!” warnings on it.
The Apostles seem rather laid back about ordaining pastors and church officers. Find men who meet these practical qualifications and move ahead.
Note how little attention Paul paid to funneling everything through Rome for approval. He was too busy overcoming Peter’s gaffes.
LikeLike
This doesn’t make sense. Perhaps there are typos in here and I’m too dense to read between the lines? Anyway, feel free to try again if you think you have something worth contributing. Based on your comments thus far, I am pretty confident that the answer is no. Perhaps your time would be better spent brushing up on what a paradigm is.
LikeLike
Everyone except Erik is encouraged to watch this video (warning: math alert!).
It is highly relevant to the discussion here.
http://www.realclearscience.com/video/2014/11/06/all_triangles_are_equilateral.html
LikeLike
“As it turns out, the gates of Augsburg, Geneva and the Tower of London have not prevailed against it. Although they have prevailed against each other. Catholicism continues to prevail.”
TVD, If you really think that, I honestly want to know why you don’t submit to the Roman Church and join? Your obvious fascination with this subject is mind-boggling. What is driving it? If it is a pursuit of justice toward Rome, aren’t there other injustices that are more pressing than a few words in Old Life backwoods?
LikeLike
I was just reading this review of two biographies about Ayn Rand, and this line jumped out at me,
It’s how I think of CtC….
LikeLike
Wow. This error is at the heart of why I could never be RC.
LikeLike
Jeff,
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….
And you were doing so well.
LikeLike
sdb,
And then the uber-logician Rand went and threw a temper fit when Nathaniel Branden decided he’d rather sleep with a younger woman.
Logic can’t keep you warm at night.
LikeLike
The #1 mark of a cool smart person is never trying to display to people that you’re a smart person.
I learned that from Encyclopedia Brown.
Always say smart things so that people of average intelligence can grasp them with minimal effort. Even the most complicated ideas can be made simple if you break them down into small pieces.
Asking people to watch long videos and follow long, convoluted arguments is not effective if the goal is to truly communicate.
LikeLike
“The #1 mark of a cool smart person is never trying to display to people that you’re a smart person.”
Note how covert Erik can be when he wantsa be, (You were beggin’ for this one Erik.)
LikeLike
Just so I don’t have to count above 20, I’m happy.
LikeLike
If the church says that the church is infallible, who gets to authenticate the church?
Teacher, teacher, I know, I know. Call on me, call on me. The answer is Bryan.
Oh.
OK
It’s not Bryan, it’s Francis.
Teacher, teacher, call on me. . . .
Famous last words from Anglicans.
William Perkins: Scripture is the gloss and the text.
John Henry Newman: Blah blah blah.
Famous last words from Apostles.
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus 2 Tim. 3:15
Infallible Articles of Faith?
Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia/the Bible and Tradition
Sola Fide or Faith and (imperfect) Works
Grace alone or grace and works (see above)
Christ alone or Christ, Mary and the rest of the saints
To God’s glory alone or do we include the most holy Father and blessed Pontiff?
And last but not least, we’ve been hanging around with Bryan too long if we think TVD’s church attendance is not par for the course for most of those Rome counts as members. There’s a reason why they call it implicit faith. You don’t have to know or do anything explicitly. Capiche? It doesn’t get any more performatively ad hoc than that.
LikeLike
Mud and Erik (and Jeff), i thought the quote was The height of cleverness is to be able to conceal
your sources using HTMLit.LikeLike
Susan, I’ll tell you again (and not take the time to find where I said it months ago). Have you thought more about starting your own blog, or do you still only have time to reach us protestants where we are all washed up?
LikeLike
I should have been more specific. Susan, Cletus, and Tom are specifically invited to watch the 5 minute video, in which a mathematician “proves” that all triangles are equilateral.
Erik, meanwhile, is strongly discouraged from watching the video because ADHD trigger warning. Look! Squirrels!
The spoiler to the video is that all of the geometric mumbo-jumbo is “correct” (and thus appears to check). The falsehood is in the diagram itself.
And that leads us back to our discussion.
LikeLike
PS here’s an article about your church I just saw
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_CATHOLIC_BISHOPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-08-12-50-58
LikeLike
Jeff,
Next time lead with the spoiler and make the video optional.
CliffsNotes
Like the preacher who goes on for an hour, forgetting that the first goal is to ensure that the audience remains upright and semi-awake.
LikeLike
Blurb in the local paper about a woman who is giving a public lecture on Pope Francis on Monday night.
One of the sponsors is one of the two local Catholic Parishes.
Last time I was there (for a rummage sale) I took note of the framed posters they had up celebrating the Church Councils throughout history. Nothing I could see celebrating the Popes.
The speaker:
Professor Anne M. Clifford, C.S.J.
2007-2008 Tuohy Chair Holder
Anne M. Clifford is a Sister of St. Joseph and theologian with an overarching interest in the relations of religion to many facets of American culture, including to the natural sciences, gender as a social construct, and the environment in this time of global climate change. A graduate of Carlow University (B.A.), the Catholic Theological Union of Chicago (M.A.), and The Catholic University of America (Ph.D.), Dr. Clifford is an Associate Professor of Theology and the Director of the University Core Curriculum at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pa. She is currently the President of the College Theology Society (2006-2007) and has served as the Convener for the Theological Anthropology Section of the annual Catholic Theological Society of America conferences (1996-1998 and 2003-2006).
Among her publications are articles on theology and science and ecological theology in monographs, encyclopedias, and journals. She is the author of Introducing Feminist Theology (2001, a winner of a Catholic Press Association award). She is co-editor of Christology: Memory, Inquiry, Practice (2003) and a contributing editor of the revised New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003). Her current major project is Man, Woman, Earth: Christian Anthropology (in the Orbis Books’ “Theology in Global Perspectives” series, forthcoming). She has been an invited participant to numerous conferences on theology and science and on ecological theology, including ecumenical conferences of international scholars held in Castel Gandolfo and Warsaw, co-sponsored by the Vatican Observatory and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.
LikeLike
@Erik:
I haven’t decided yet which approach to take. I could play Little Brother and keeping pushing your buttons. Or, I could just gently let you know that at my age, I’m probably not going to change the way I communicate to everyone just to please you.
Do you have a preference?
I can promise you that my fondness for math and sustained conversation is not a bid for glory. I know which pond I swim in, and I’m comfortable there.
Using your pub metaphor: What kind of person circulates the tables and kibbutzes the conversation styles?
LikeLike
That’s what I’ve been doing wrong!
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m just giving you grief. You don’t have to change anything to suit me.
LikeLike
After a decade in Reformed Churches I’ve grown weary of:
(1) Interscholastic hairsplitting
(2) Longwindedness
In other words, it’s not a you problem, it’s a me problem.
You & David are getting along fine so I just need to butt out.
LikeLike
Make that “intramural hairsplitting”.
LikeLike
You’re in In good company, Erik.
LikeLike
Being Confessional and sacramental should equate to being relatively brief.
Claude Lanzmann called and said sometimes we may belabor a point and let our services go on a bit too long.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090015/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_7
LikeLike
@ Erik: Roger, roger.
LikeLike
Who is Roger again?
LikeLike
Today’s New York Times thinks that maybe The Church is getting in the way of Francis and Jesus:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/opinion/sunday/can-i-stay-with-the-church.html?_r=0
LikeLike
Wait. Does this mean we aren’t going to push this thread to 1000 comments?
LikeLike
sdb,
As long as half the comments are from Catholics I say let’s go for it.
Francis is the gift that keeps on giving.
LikeLike
SDB and EC, if its numbers were after, I’m sure one of us in about 5 minutes can get this string to 1000 with enough persistent clicking. Me? Well..enough of me and my small opinions, yo.
LikeLike
Bob,
Sure I get it. What you don’t seem to get is RCs freely admit they fallibly interpret and make a decision into submitting – no one’s a robot. If you don’t believe me – Ronald Knox wrote nearly a century ago:
“Is it really so difficult to see that a revealed religion demands, from its very nature, a place for private judgment and a place for authority? A place for private judgment, in determining that the revelation itself comes from God, in discovering the Medium through which that revelation comes to us, and the rule of faith by which we are enabled to determine what is, and what is not, revealed. A place for authority to step in, when these preliminary investigations are over, and say ‘Now, be careful, for you are out of your depth here….At this point, then, you must begin to believe by hearsay; from this point onwards you must ask, not to be convinced, but to be taught.'”
And BC Butler responding to Salmon, “Now no one, so far as I know, has ever maintained that an act of faith, in one who has reached the age of reason, does not involve or imply an act of personal decision, and a Roman Catholic advocate has no inclination to contest this point. The Church teaches that an act of faith is a virtuous act, and no act can be virtuous unless it comes from the intelligence and will of the agent. We do not merely concede the point, we strongly maintain it.”
So your continued “CtC apologetics is inconsistent” remains flat. It’s not a blind faith – a blind faith would be submitting to self-admitted opinions and a system that can never offer more than that based on its own principles/standards.
Jeff,
“NT believers did not claim certainty for themselves. You do.”
So again, Do you say the NT believer who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher of the OT is in no better shape than the NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter? If no, then that’s the difference. Why would RCs claim they have more certainty than those who submitted to Christ/Apostle’s authority when the agent they are submitting to claims to have that, and not more, authority?
“But in fact, you don’t have certainty. Instead, you have your own fallible understanding of what you believe to be infallible teaching. Your situation is precisely identical to the Protestant inerrantist’s position.”
By this logic then, you would seem to affirm the NT believer who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher of the OT is in no better shape than the NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter.
RCs do not deny we fallibly interpret. I’m not sure who told you otherwise. That does not entail our situations are precisely identical – which your colleagues recognize, otherwise they wouldn’t rail against Rome’s claims regarding infallibility/authority in the first place.
Robert,
“Again, the unspoken assumption is that Rome is on the same level as Christ and the Apostles even though you all formally deny that she has the same inspiration and authority. So the parallel is relevant how? ”
The parallel is relevant in deflating the “we all fallibly interpret so infallible interpreters are superfluous and we’re all on same ground” canard. That’s why you continue to deny Rome’s claim to authority/infallibility.
“consistent confessional Protestants who believe in radical skepticism know that homosexuality is wrong on the first pass”
Yes and on what basis do you offer that homosexuality is wrong to the inconsistent confessional and non-confessional Protestants; why should they care what you or your confession says – neither claim divine authority to offer infallible interpretation/teaching – semper reformanda.
“So we can trust your fallible judgment that Rome is the church Jesus founded but I can’t trust my fallible judgment that the canon is correct. Do you realize how much of a cult leader you sound like?”
You don’t need to trust my fallible judgment.
“As long as I am a finite creature, all of my beliefs are somewhat provisional because I am not omniscient and cannot see how all things fit together.”
Cool – so all teaching/interpretation remains provisional before assenting to authority, and remains provisional after assenting to the authority. So nothing changed. Which is why the parallel was relevant above and why Protestantism can never offer anything that rises above provisional opinion.
“All you have is your provisional interpretation of what Rome has said”
There are many examples of irreformable articles of faith Rome has defined. There are no such examples in Protestantism because its very principles/standards preclude it.
“Your problem is that you think it is inherently impossible that God could design things to rule His church via a book.”
I think it’s inherently impossible that God could design things so as to preclude the identification of (infallible) articles of faith. Btw, RCism agrees a book is an authority.
“You have no way of knowing whether your interpretation of Rome is provisional opinion or actually correct.”
Sure I do – it’s not difficult to give examples of irreformable articles of faith. And things that are unclear can be clarified later via the same mechanisms as history shows. There’s no semper reformanda and perpetual provisional opinion inherent in the system.
LikeLike
I just thought I saw the RCC escape with a 5-4 “supreme court” decision upholding traditional views of marriage and “lifestyle”
so we are at most a decade from it swinging the other way?
LikeLike
Cletus, do you know the blog Greenbaggins? They are all about long comment threads, but you may have to identify yourself to the blog owner (be warned, I think your first comment is held in wordpress blgo purgatory, but shouldn’t be a problem for you, I think, toodle-oo).
LikeLike
Cletus,
Sure I do – it’s not difficult to give examples of irreformable articles of faith. And things that are unclear can be clarified later via the same mechanisms as history shows. There’s no semper reformanda and perpetual provisional opinion inherent in the system.
Which then have to be interpreted and no two RCs agree on how to interpret ever example of irreformable articles of faith. Your own bishops who make up the Magisterium can’t agree that you shouldn’t value homosexual orientation.
Perpetual provisional “opinion” is inherent in your system. It’s why V2 understands US different than earlier RCs. It’s why Rahner could suggest that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity. You don’t have anything that is finally solved any more than Protestants do. Big whoop that you have the Nicene Creed when that still has to be interpreted by the Magisterium that still has to be interpreted by you.
The mere fact that you claim that there is no perpetual provisional opinion doesn’t mean its not there. The only people who don’t believe there is no perpetual provisional opinion are rad-trad Romanists of your particular Protestantish sort, including the CTC folk. Go ask any run of the mill RC if the church is settled. Go ask Kasper. Go ask Francis.
You don’t need to trust my fallible judgment.
Okay. So, do I trust Kasper’s fallible judgment or Burke’s? Do I trust my own?
LikeLike
Third time’s the charm, DVC
Prots can know infallible truth despite the Roman claim that they cannot truly know truth because they are not members of the popish club.
Not to mention Bryan’s belief that Rome really really is the true and infallible church and therefore prots should join, but they can’t because they are too stupid to know the truth.
But two into three won’t go and if prots could recognize/know truth outside of popery, why do they have to join?
Answer: implicit faith solves the dilemma regardless of whether prots can or cannot truly know the truth.
Got it. How very convenient.
You can’t or won’t tell us what your argument is or ours and the fundamental contradictions, but we are consequently supposed to sign on the dotted line.
Nope.
The infallible articles of the Reformation faith:
Sola Scriptura, Solo Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Sola Deo Gloria.
(Admit it. You’re green with envy. Nor is the truth a hall of mirrors like Rome wants it to be.)
LikeLike
lame fox, “By this logic then, you would seem to affirm the NT believer who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher of the OT is in no better shape than the NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter.”
So you’re saying the bishops and pope have as much authority as Christ and the apostles. Where exactly do Christ and the apostles say that bishops have that authority? I get it, they whispered it to Irenaeus just like Constantine donated land to the papacy.
I’ve got a divinely inspired bridge I’m trying to sell. Interested?
LikeLike
I’m so glad Cletus never left us. Once he learns to post higher up on threads here at OL, we’ll be having Fun like in times past.
Did I mention the word, infallible?
LikeLike
Cardinal Marx says that reports of the progressives’ defeat at the Synod are greatly exaggerated. Certainty indeed…
LikeLike
If the only thing that could change was the possibility of making a mistake, you’d have a point. But since that isn’t the case, you don’t.
LikeLike
Well there are the infallible scriptures… This protestant approach appears to be more successful at convincing protestants than the RC approach to convincing RCs (the basis of this post). The 538 analysis I linked to earlier in the thread is worth pondering as well.
LikeLike
Clete,
If bishops are saying what appear to be contradictory things about an important issue, does the individual Catholic have the freedom to go to the Catechism him or herself and make a determination which of the bishops is in the right.
If so, is this not putting one’s private judgment or interpretation over that of an ordained prince of the church?
If not, how does that layperson process the disagreement between bishops?
LikeLike
CVD: By this logic then, you would seem to affirm the NT believer who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher of the OT is in no better shape than the NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter.
“No better shape” is your phrase, not mine. I said that the situations were the same, meaning, that neither NT believer nor NT Jew had certainty about his own understanding.
You agree, so I won’t quibble about “shapes.” If that’s of interest, then define your term and we can talk.
LikeLike
Ok, but as you haggle about what all the RC believes, and it’s a few boat loads and then some and the ships often pass each other in the night sailing in opposite directions, somebody keep an eye on the scorecard of money and vocations. This fight will be one by the biggest pocketbook and the most bodies. GARONTEED.
LikeLike
Pretty sure Paul didn’t claim that he was infallible. He encouraged his readers to test what he said against scripture. In fact he told the Galatians that even if an apostle (presumably including Peter) were to contradict his gospel message, that person should be cut off. Curious, no?
I don’t claim to be an infallible interpreter, but you would be in much better shape if you submitted to my teaching of physics than if you submitted to Newton’s teaching on physics. The fact that your assent to our authority should be provisional does not mean you can’t have certainty. Nor does the fact that we are both fallible mean that neither are trustworthy. Only the data is infallible…
But to get back to your hypothetical 1st century Jews, their state does not depend of the hypothetical fallibility of the authority. The one who submits to the gospel message, even if the person preaching it is doing so for dishonest gain. Further, no one is made right with God for having the right epistemology. We come to embrace the gospel message if we called, and if we are called, we will surely respond. As Jesus said,
LikeLike
Which thread has the comments by Kasper about Pope Francis? I commented this morning but can’t find it now. Maybe it was all a dream.
LikeLike
@SDB
Mostly agree with what you wrote. But I do have to nit pick. Actually Paul does claim to be receiving visions from the Lord i.e. direct prophecy. When he is recounting those he is acting in prophetic voice and would be claiming to be infallible.
LikeLike
Erik,
“If bishops are saying what appear to be contradictory things about an important issue”
Depends on the issue. Two bishops disagreeing about Thomist or Molinist view of predestination is not the same as two bishops disagreeing on Christ is divine or the Assumption occurred.
“If so, is this not putting one’s private judgment or interpretation over that of an ordained prince of the church?”
Pope’s have been corrected on theology (John XII and beatific vision for instance). If infallibility operated on the level you seem to think it must for any difference between Protestantism and RCism to exist, there could never be theological development or growth.
Jeff,
““No better shape” is your phrase, not mine. I said that the situations were the same, meaning, that neither NT believer nor NT Jew had certainty about his own understanding.”
Here’s what you said: “Sure you (claim to) have an infallible interpreter — but you can’t infallibly interpret that interpreter’s words, so you are in no better shape.”
“You agree”
I agree we all fallibly interpret. As every other RC on the planet does. I disagree “Your situation is precisely identical to the Protestant inerrantist’s position.”
sdb,
“If the only thing that could change was the possibility of making a mistake, you’d have a point. But since that isn’t the case, you don’t.”
The “nothing changes” point is that nothing changes because of the nature of Protestantism’s principles and claims where things can never rise above opinion. Hence semper reformanda. That’s part of what the Knox quote I cited explains in the difference before and after submission (which can take place because of the principles and nature of claims being made), as well as the reference to the Christ/Apostles authority parallel (which can take place because of the principles and nature of claims being made).
“Pretty sure Paul didn’t claim that he was infallible.”
So the Apostles and Christ never claimed divine authority in relation to their teaching?
“He encouraged his readers to test what he said against scripture.”
Would the Bereans be commended if they had rejected his teaching and authority based on their interpretation of Scripture?
“In fact he told the Galatians that even if an apostle (presumably including Peter) were to contradict his gospel message, that person should be cut off. Curious, no?”
Right the gospel message he preached to them under his authority, right?
“I don’t claim to be an infallible interpreter, but you would be in much better shape if you submitted to my teaching of physics than if you submitted to Newton’s teaching on physics.”
Is your teaching of Scripture greater than Christ and the Apostles? And supernatural revelation is not identical with natural revelation.
“Only the data is infallible…”
What data is that? It’s a fallible collection with asterisked passages right? So we’re back to the ever-provisional and semper reformanda as enshrined in the confessions (themselves ever-provisional by their own admission – and rightly so to be consistent with their principles).
“Further, no one is made right with God for having the right epistemology.”
Yep, but would God commend someone who put faith into some random Jew or teaching body offering self-professed provisional opinions about what the OT meant and rejecting the ability and divine authority to identify (irreformable) articles of faith? If so, would he commend someone for sheer fideism? If not, how are the two distinguished?
LikeLike
lame fox, “would God commend someone who put faith into some random Jew or teaching body offering self-professed provisional opinions about what the OT meant and rejecting the ability and divine authority to identify (irreformable) articles of faith? If so, would he commend someone for sheer fideism? If not, how are the two distinguished?”
Why don’t you tell us since you have all the trump?
But you assume that God has commended your infallible magisterium. The Bible is hardly clear about that. Oh, wait, that’s a Protestant objection. So tradition teaches magisterial infallibility? Oh, wait, it’s the magisterium only who has access to the tradition.
Yes, that’s a plausible scenario — if you’re Mormon.
LikeLike
I count about 10 ?????????? in the above combox. My only ? is how do we help the padawan.
LikeLike
JRC: ““No better shape” is your phrase, not mine. I said that the situations were the same, meaning, that neither NT believer nor NT Jew had certainty about his own understanding.”
CVD: Here’s what you said: “Sure you (claim to) have an infallible interpreter — but you can’t infallibly interpret that interpreter’s words, so you are in no better shape.”
Yes, you’re correct and I was wrong. I introduced the phrase as a rhetorical flourish, and it was clearly a vague overreach.
So my position is that both groups are in the same situation in that neither has mathematical certainty of his own understanding of the OT.
Your position is, Yes, they both lack mathematical certainty, but there is an important difference between their situations.
I’m open to that. But what specific difference do you want to posit?
LikeLike
CD – Depends on the issue. Two bishops disagreeing about Thomist or Molinist view of predestination is not the same as two bishops disagreeing on Christ is divine or the Assumption occurred.
Erik – More practically, how about Bishops who disagree over the direction of the Synod on the or about the direction that Pope Francis is taking the church?
LikeLike
Sorry, “Synod on the Family”.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yes, that’s a plausible scenario — if you’re Mormon.
This points out the sheer absurdity of the Cletus/CTC apologetic. Cletus, at least, believes that Mormonism is more worthy of consideration that Protestantism because it makes a claim to infallibility. Of course, I don’t think the Magisterium that he bows to would say that, given that they as of yet don’t admit Mormon baptism as valid, but there you go.
For those who bemoan private judgment, its amusing when their private judgment puts them at odds with the very authority to which they say they submit.
LikeLike
Pope’s have been corrected on theology (John XII and beatific vision for instance).
Then how can they be infallible? (You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.) If a source, be it a text or a person, is infallible it must be infallible across time, place, and content and never corrected. Whenever has the Bible been corrected on theology? Your concept of infallibility is not nearly audacious enough.
LikeLike
The problem with watering down the meaning of infallibility is that every time you do it, the paradigm becomes less superior.
If only our wives put this many qualifications on their superior knowledge and judgment.
LikeLike
Erik: If bishops are saying what appear to be contradictory things about an important issue, does the individual Catholic have the freedom to go to the Catechism him or herself and make a determination which of the bishops is in the right
Could you imagine your pastor and elders and deacons all feeling free to mouth off on what they think should be changed, ESPECIALLY on an issue as fundamental, and clearly taught in Scripture, as one’s sexuality????
LikeLike
Reformed ramblings on the Synod have completely lost touch with reality. No party at the Synod disagrees with the following:
1. Homosexuality is a grave sin.
2. Marriage is indissoluble.
The controversy is over how church discipline should best reflect these realities that everyone agree upon. The absolute WORST case scenario here so far as I can see is that some horrible disciplinary measures are passed that may undermine the doctrine…… Does the Catholic Church claim to be infallible in area of discipline? Nope. So, again, this conversation is very interesting for Catholics…. But very strange to have with people outside of the Church. Time and time again on these boards the Church gets criticized for not living up to the standards of ecclesiastical infallibility that have been made up in yalls imagination. Its reformed little man syndrome rearing its ugly head again.
LikeLike
loser ken, are Reformed Protestants supposed to ignore Ross Douthat? Did he switch teams and become a TKNY devotee?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The absolute WORST case scenario here so far as I can see is that some horrible disciplinary measures are passed that may undermine the doctrine…… Does the Catholic Church claim to be infallible in area of discipline?
Remind us again how doctrine is infallible if it can be undermined by fallible discipline.
I’d also like to know how homosexuality is a sin if a plurality of your bishops want to recognize and value homosexual orientation. Gee, let’s value that which leads to sin.
LikeLike
DGHART,
I enjoy reading Ross…. But he is not speaking to YOU, he is taking part in an in house debate. Said debate does not have any impact or relevance to the ctc Catholic apologetic. The problem isnt that you are reading the nytimes, the problem is that you are making the Synod something that it isnt….. Namely, relevant to Catholic Protestant debates
LikeLike
Robert,
I’d also like to know how homosexuality is a sin if a plurality of your bishops want to recognize and value homosexual orientation. Gee, let’s value that which leads to sin.
More of the usual reformed sophistry. You tell only part of the story. The Synod did not say we should “recognize and value” homosexual orientation. It ASKS can we “accept and evaluate” them WITHOUT COMPROMISING doctrine.
“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Often they wish to encounter a church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and evaluating their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”
Again, reformed commentary has lost touch with reality. Thank you for illustrating my point
LikeLike
KW: No party at the Synod disagrees with the following:
That’s a high burden of proof. Do you have the data to back it up, or is that a bet?
LikeLike
loser ken, last I checked the New York Times was not a Roman Catholic publication. Ross is speaking to all readers of the Times. In which case, your assertion that Reformed Protestants are making more of this than is necessary defies what Douthat writes.
And Protestants did not make such a big deal of papal audacity and infallibility. The apologists did in order to make us feel like we’re just out there, spinning our spiritual wheels.
LikeLike
“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Often they wish to encounter a church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and evaluating their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”
Again, reformed commentary has lost touch with reality. Thank you for illustrating my point
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.1 Cor. 6:9-10
No, thank you.
Ooops. Forgot.
The Roman church is not the kingdom of God.
Then I guess you’re right. Unrepentant sinners are welcomed and Francis will wash their feet when he gets around to it in the name f the fullness and mercy of something.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“But what specific difference do you want to posit?”
The difference I’ve already mentioned repeatedly in this thread with Christ/Apostles authority. The difference that has caused your tradition to reject and write against Rome’s claims to authority/infallibility for 500 years. If there was actually no difference just because we all fallibly interpret, then Rome’s claims to authority/infallibility and Protestantism’s sustained criticism of that would be superfluous and irrelevant.
Erik,
“More practically, how about Bishops who disagree over the direction of the Synod on the or about the direction that Pope Francis is taking the church?”
Debate and posturing amongst bishops is nothing new in ecumenical councils, let alone preparatory synods focusing on pastoral matters (as Kenneth is pointing out). That’s why it’s strange to RCs that your side keeps on harping on this synod as if it’s devastating to notions of infallibility – it’s not news now, and it wasn’t news during Vat1 when the decree was being crafted.
Robert,
“This points out the sheer absurdity of the Cletus/CTC apologetic. Cletus, at least, believes that Mormonism is more worthy of consideration that Protestantism because it makes a claim to infallibility.”
Let’s take the NT Jew example again. Say he’s walking around and he sees 3 bodies asking him to submit. One (a) is Christ/Apostles claiming divine authority and ability to interpret/teach irreformable articles of faith. One (b) is some other Messianic group/leader making a similar claim. One (c) is some random Jew claiming he has no divine authority and is not infallible and has no ability to interpret/teach irreformable articles of faith – he freely admits what he teaches/interprets is provisional to be consistent with those principles. Even if B has no credibility – say they make prophecies that don’t come true – does that mean I’m more justified in giving my assent of faith to C?
Or, as I said above: would God commend someone who put faith into some random Jew or teaching body offering self-professed provisional opinions about what the OT meant and rejecting the ability and divine authority to identify (irreformable) articles of faith? If so, would he also commend someone for sheer fideism? If no to the latter, how are the two distinguished?
Zrim,
“Then how can they be infallible?”
This is what I mean. You and others keep criticizing infallibility because it doesn’t meet your expectations and notions of how it should work, rather than criticizing it according to the standard Rome has defined it as. Just like an atheist criticizes biblical inerrancy because it doesn’t meet his expectations and notions of how it should work, rather than criticizing it according to the standard conservative Reformed tradition defined it as.
“(You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.)”
Said every atheist/liberal critic of inerrancy ever. Said every Jewish critic of the Christian view of the law and prophecies ever.
“If a source, be it a text or a person, is infallible it must be infallible across time, place, and content and never corrected.”
When Peter was corrected by Paul, was Peter infallible? If not, was he infallible when he wrote 1/2 Peter or made his declaration at the council in Acts? Was Paul infallible when he wrote women should wear headcoverings and not jewelry, men shouldn’t have long hair, and women should only ask theological questions of their husbands? If so, why isn’t it obeyed by Reformed churches today?
“Whenever has the Bible been corrected on theology?”
Why does your Bible have asterisked passages? Are those corrections?
“Your concept of infallibility is not nearly audacious enough.”
Your concept of inerrancy is not nearly audacious enough. It dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Have you been convinced to become an atheist now?
LikeLike
lame fox, “You and others keep criticizing infallibility because it doesn’t meet your expectations and notions of how it should work, rather than criticizing it according to the standard Rome has defined it as.”
Wrong. Jason and the Callers doubled down on papal audacity. Now to many, including some conservative Roman Catholics, it’s not looking all that audacious. The problem really is that the doctrine doesn’t do what you say it does.
But you can’t admit it. Why? It’s a circle. The church is infallible, so it can’t err. Things are screwed up but the church can’t err. Rinse, and repeat.
LikeLike
Clete,
You still haven’t given me your opinion on how individual Catholics should sort out these disagreements between bishops?
How do they pick a side without thinking that they know better than a duly ordained bishop?
LikeLike
Erik, Clete can’t post without chuckling to himself at his wit and humming “will it go round in circles”
LikeLike
Darryl,
“The problem really is that the doctrine doesn’t do what you say it does. ”
No, the problem really is that you keep analyzing infallibility and the papacy according to the criteria you’ve set for it (it really is all about you this time), rather than the criteria Rome has set for it. The doctrine obviously has done what “I say it does” – that’s why it’s not difficult for me to offer examples of irreformable articles of faith. That wouldn’t be possible without the doctrine – which is why it’s not possible with Protestant principles.
Erik,
A duly ordained bishop can be in error. A duly ordained bishop can offer opinion in matters that are not settled, and he can also dissent in matters that have been settled. None of this is news.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
More of the usual reformed sophistry. You tell only part of the story. The Synod did not say we should “recognize and value” homosexual orientation. It ASKS can we “accept and evaluate” them WITHOUT COMPROMISING doctrine.
There’s no “them.” It is talking about homosexual orientation in general:
Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and evaluating their sexual orientation
And I’ll ask again, why is the infallible Magisterium even asking this question. You guys want us to believe those people can’t err, and yet they are asking questions that even honest liberals know that the Bible answers in the negative.
Reminds me of the RC ethicist I had as a professor an undergrad religion major. She is as orthodox as you are Kenneth, as she hasn’t been excommunicated. She said any honest reading of the Bible would indicate that it has an entirely negative view of homosexuality but that the Bible is wrong. Why can this liberal know the answer when the Magisterium doesn’t? More importantly, how am I supposed to believe her view is any less orthodox than yours, especially when Rome is now debating the topic.
Weak sauce. Your church is slowly repeating the train wreck of the PCUSA. It’s going so slowly, though, that Cletus and Bryan will be able to explain why homosexuality has always been embraced as God’s good gift. Just give them a few decades.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Let’s take the NT Jew example again. Say he’s walking around and he sees 3 bodies asking him to submit. One (a) is Christ/Apostles claiming divine authority and ability to interpret/teach irreformable articles of faith. One (b) is some other Messianic group/leader making a similar claim. One (c) is some random Jew claiming he has no divine authority and is not infallible and has no ability to interpret/teach irreformable articles of faith – he freely admits what he teaches/interprets is provisional to be consistent with those principles. Even if B has no credibility – say they make prophecies that don’t come true – does that mean I’m more justified in giving my assent of faith to C?
Until you are going to admit that Rome is exactly the same as Christ and the Apostles in every way, this is a silly charge. You assume that which must be proven, and that is that Rome is inspired in the same way Christ and the Apostles are. If Rome ain’t inspired in that way, which even Rome formally accepts, it doesn’t have infallibility. The particular kind of inspiration is what grants them infallibility.
But in any case. If B teaches falsehood, you are more justified in trusting whatever body teaches the truth, whether or not it claims infallibility for itself.
Or, as I said above: would God commend someone who put faith into some random Jew or teaching body offering self-professed provisional opinions about what the OT meant and rejecting the ability and divine authority to identify (irreformable) articles of faith? If so, would he also commend someone for sheer fideism? If no to the latter, how are the two distinguished?
God doesn’t command us to put our faith in the church but in Christ. So if you want to make Francis the second incarnation of the Son of God, this might have some relevance. As it is, you’re just sounding Mormon.
God commands us to put our faith in what the Apostles and Christ have taught. Not in whoever claims to be infallible. But again, if you want to believe that Crazy Joe, Joseph Smith, and Francis are equally valid claimants to being the mouthpieces of God, we can’t help you.
LikeLike
This is what I mean. You and others keep criticizing infallibility because it doesn’t meet your expectations and notions of how it should work, rather than criticizing it according to the standard Rome has defined it as. Just like an atheist criticizes biblical inerrancy because it doesn’t meet his expectations and notions of how it should work, rather than criticizing it according to the standard conservative Reformed tradition defined it as…Why does your Bible have asterisked passages? Are those corrections?
CvD, you call clarifying notes actual corrections of content? Don’t go into editing. But since when does Rome have copyright over the definition of infallibility? May I declare myself magic if by magic I mean “I’m good at hiding stuff sometimes”? But that’s not magic.
I’m not appealing to any particular definition of infallible, Roman or Reformed. I’m using a common term, defined by that common definer Merriam-Webster: “Incapable of error; not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint.” If a pope is incapable of error and not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint, then how can he be corrected? Only if by infallible you mean “pretty good at defining faith and morals but certainly not unable to err.” And if that’s the case, infallible is the wrong word, more like fallible. Eye on the shells, kids.
LikeLike
Clete,
Do you as a layman feel qualified to determine which bishops are in error on a given subject?
LikeLike
Fair enough, but I guess the question for a Galatian or Berean is how are they to know when Paul is acting in a prophetic voice. It seems that there were three sources of confirmation given to people:
1) They really did see the risen Christ (and Paul has to go to great lengths to defend his status in that regard).
2) What they claimed was “according to the scriptures”
3) Their character was impeccable (this was part of Paul’s apologetic through out the NT, and I seem to recall why Wills thinks Peter was not heard from after Paul confronted him…it’s been a long time since I read his argument so I’m really fuzzy on the details).
Paul didn’t present himself as one who couldn’t be questioned, but of course what he delivered was trustworthy. Not clear to me at all that it applies to those who came after him. The RC church has invented new doctrines – it seems to me they have overstepped.
LikeLike
CVD: The difference I’ve already mentioned repeatedly in this thread with Christ/Apostles authority.
Which is what, specifically?
LikeLike
lame fox, but according to many RC historians, some of whom are priests, only two doctrines are infallible — papal infallibility and the bodily assumption of Mary.
So if that’s what you mean by the doctrine doing its work, well done.
But would you really have me believe your account rather than Eamon Duffy’s? I don’t think you have charism or degrees for that challenge.
LikeLike
zrim, beware, lame fox is quaffing the paradigm koolaid.
LikeLike
Robert,
“If B teaches falsehood, you are more justified in trusting whatever body teaches the truth, whether or not it claims infallibility for itself.”
If you’re saying I should go with C, that would mean I believe something that is of faith, but not by faith. I can’t believe something by faith if the nature of the claims/principles I am assenting to precludes that, by definition.
“God doesn’t command us to put our faith in the church but in Christ.”
So God didn’t want believers to believe what the Apostles taught by faith? This is a false dichotomy anyways, as Paul wrote.
“God commands us to put our faith in what the Apostles and Christ have taught.”
Wait – I thought it was only Christ.
“Not in whoever claims to be infallible.”
What if the Apostles and Christ did not claim to be infallible or to have divine authority. Would God still want me to put faith in them? Or would that be sheer fideism?
“But again, if you want to believe that Crazy Joe, Joseph Smith, and Francis are equally valid claimants to being the mouthpieces of God, we can’t help you.”
They don’t have equal credibility. The claim is necessary, not sufficient.
Zrim,
“you call clarifying notes actual corrections of content? Don’t go into editing”
Asterisked passages/verses are disputed as to their authenticity. Is that a correction?
“May I declare myself magic if by magic I mean “I’m good at hiding stuff sometimes”? But that’s not magic. ”
May I declare Scripture inerrant if by inerrant I mean the Chicago Statement? Or the countless conservative volumes giving their nuances and qualifications I’ll find on amazon?
“If a pope is incapable of error and not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint, then how can he be corrected?”
If Peter and Paul were incapable of error and not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint, then how can Peter be corrected and Paul’s instructions no longer applied?
Erik,
“Do you as a layman feel qualified to determine which bishops are in error on a given subject?”
Again depends on the subject. If a bishop says Christ is not divine or infants are not to be baptized, I feel qualified to say he’s in error.
Jeff,
I’ll repeat:
So again, Do you say the NT believer who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher of the OT is in no better shape than the NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter? If no, then that’s the difference.
In both cases, the agents submitting fallibly interpret. I posit that fact does not entail “Your situation is precisely identical to the Protestant inerrantist’s position.” If you think it does entail that, then I’d like to know how you can also answer no to the above question, and also explain why Rome’s claims to divine authority/infallibility are not therefore superfluous and irrelevant (which your colleagues here as well as your broader tradition for the past 500 years feel compelled to criticize at length, so it doesn’t seem superfluous).
Darryl,
” but according to many RC historians, some of whom are priests, only two doctrines are infallible — papal infallibility and the bodily assumption of Mary.”
I see. So the Resurrection, Trinity, venial/mortal sin distinction, infant baptism, original sin, Immac Conc, PV, rejection of Pelagianism/SP, affirmation of infused righteousness, Real Presence, Romans is inspired and book of Mormon isn’t, hypostatic union, etc. are not irreformable doctrines in RCism? Perhaps you are conflating infallibility with ex cathedra statements – they are not coterminous.
“So if that’s what you mean by the doctrine doing its work, well done.”
Yep, just one example suffices to demonstrate the point. So thanks.
LikeLike
Kenneth – So, again, this conversation is very interesting for Catholics…. But very strange to have with people outside of the Church.
Erik – Because Catholics are so numerous, things that happen in the Church impacts the wider cultures in which the Church operates. I’m not personally rooting for a “downgrade” in discipline. Real world consequences come along with that.
Likewise, when Pope Francis puts down the efforts of Pro Life advocates, that’s not a good thing.
How do you reconcile Pope Francis’ “Who Am I to Judge?” with official Church teaching on Homosexuality? Isn’t he in THE position to judge?
LikeLike
Clete – “Do you as a layman feel qualified to determine which bishops are in error on a given subject?”
Again depends on the subject. If a bishop says Christ is not divine or infants are not to be baptized, I feel qualified to say he’s in error.
Erik – We as reformed people would also say that bishop is in error. How about on the issues being addressed in the Synod on the Family? Are some bishops in error there (for instance, the ones voting in the minority)? How would you deal with that if one of those bishops was your bishop?
LikeLike
Say at the end of the Synod on the Family Pope Francis were to veto the majority votes on some of these issues. Would the bishops who voted in the majority then be the ones who were in error?
LikeLike
CvD, so what are you saying, the Bible is as semi-infallible as the Pope?
If Peter and Paul were incapable of error and not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint, then how can Peter be corrected and Paul’s instructions no longer applied?
But Peter and Paul were not infallible in their persons (i.e. incapable of error and not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint). The Word of God alone is. Sure, they were the human authors of infallible writ, but that doesn’t mean they were personally infallible. You guys use this test all the time, but it always blows up in your face because no Pope has ever penned holy writ. If a Pope were as infallible as the apostles, then why no book 67th book (or more)? As I say, not audacious enough.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“CvD, so what are you saying, the Bible is as semi-infallible as the Pope?”
I’m saying that your argument against unqualified infallibility of the pope or church would undermine your own position on the infallibility and inerrancy of the bible.
“But Peter and Paul were not infallible in their persons (i.e. incapable of error and not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint). ”
So the Apostles weren’t infallible 24/7 for infallibility to work. But the Pope has to be infallible 24/7 for infallibility to work. What?
“The Word of God alone is.”
Well, except for the asterisked passages. So why do you disobey Paul’s instructions that women should wear headcoverings and not jewelry, men shouldn’t have long hair, and women should only ask theological questions of their husbands? Why do you disobey Peter’s instruction to not eat blood? Nuance and qualification is out the window according to your standard, so I’d like to know.
LikeLike
CVD: So again, Do you say the NT believer who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher of the OT is in no better shape than the NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter? If no, then that’s the difference.
I’ve said what I’ve said: The two are the same in that neither has mathematical certainty. You agree up to that point.
You also think there is some substantive difference, which I’m open to considering. If you can state that difference clearly, then we can discuss that. If you can’t, then we can’t.
LikeLike
Clete – So why do you disobey Paul’s instructions that women should wear headcoverings and not jewelry, men shouldn’t have long hair, and women should only ask theological questions of their husbands?
Erik – I was just visiting with some women Sunday evening after worship who hold to these things.
LikeLike
CvD, so the Bible can’t be infallible across time, place, and content unless its human authors were? Yeow, if that’s not placing man above Scripture then what is? But until a Pope pens holy writ like the other apostles, the claim is lame.
I still fail to see how clarifying and interpreting the Bible’s teachings somehow betrays its inherent infallibility. The question itself betrays a rather biblicist premise. But if I’m exercising private judgment about what the infallible Bible says in certain places (about headcoverings, etc.), that must mean you’re vying for the ability to do so with the Pope–otherwise you’re as guilty of dispensing with qualification and nuance as I am. Once again, why is it kosher for you to exercise private judgment in relation to your infallible source but when we do it not so much?
LikeLike
lame fox, so what’s the point of ex cathedra if all the other affirmations are also infallible? Does ex cathedra mean really really infallible? Or is ex cathedra a metaphor for two churches?
Can you point us to a site where we can read the fine print? Or is that part of “tradition”?
LikeLike
lame fox, “I’m saying that your argument against unqualified infallibility of the pope or church would undermine your own position on the infallibility and inerrancy of the bible.”
Wrong again and really wrong. Jesus claimed the authority of the Old Testament well before the keys of the kingdom were even a glimmer in his eye. If Christ submitted to the authority of Scripture, and didn’t follow a pope, why wouldn’t you?
The whole papal supremacy thing is downright pretty anti-Jewish. I mean, how could any one be a believer before Matt 16:20? Lots of bad stuff in RC history suggests as much. To Vatican 2’s credit, it did try to find much more continuity between the Old and New Testaments.
LikeLike
Go easy on young Skywalker. He’s been praying over a doozy for almost all year.
Declension indeed.
LikeLike
Falsifiable =/= opinion. Either does fallible for that matter. This is the error your are making. The fact that Nicea could have gotten it wrong doesn’t mean they did. Nor does it preclude the possibility that someday someone will discover some piece of evidence that overturns everything (Jesus’s bones and a confession signed by the apostles that it was all a scam after all). I strongly doubt that will ever happen, but it doesn’t mean that it is impossible. I’m quite certain that Nicea is true, but it is not because of a philosophical precommitment to the infallibility of the church.
But submission is not all or nothing. The NT tells us explicitly to submit to governing authorities, but it is also clear from the NT, that that submission is contingent on the authorities not demanding that we do something that is wrong. I’ve made a vow to submit to the government of my church. If the pastor and session were to decide that this gospel stuff is all silly, I would revoke my submission. That doesn’t mean that I’m not really submitting anymore than Peter wasn’t really submitting to the authorities over him prior to being commanded not to preach the gospel.
Only Christ and his word is infallible. In so far as Paul accurately passed on what we he was told, his message was infallible. Paul wasn’t infallible.
If Paul contradicted the scripture, then of course.
Absolutely not. He did not preach that message under his authority. The message was preached under the authority of Christ by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That’s the difference.
Of course, not but my teaching of astrophysics is still superior to that of the Apostles. You can trust that it is not mere opinion that the Earth orbits the center of mass of the Solar System even though I am fallible (as are all the people who have worked on Solar System Dynamics). It is in principle possible that someone will come along and show us that we need to reform our model of the Solar System yet again (though I strongly doubt we will even diverge from the teaching that the Earth orbits the center of mass of the Solar System). My point is that you don’t need to be infallible to get that right. Similarly with history. There are all kinds of things we know quite well about the ancient world based on the work of fallible people. Many of those facts are quite well established and are highly unlikely to ever need revision. Not because of a philosophical principle that makes such a change impossible. The point of the analogy I draw with science is that infallibility is not necessary to establish certainty. We could move out of the realm of science – neither my wife nor I am infallible, but we are quite sure we love one another. Neither my parents nor I am infallible, but I am quite sure I am their son (even without a DNA test!).
Any data really, but in this case I had in mind the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Sure
the Bible hasn’t been perfectly preserved, and this is something that skeptics never tire of pointing out. I’m aware of their criticism, but I remain unconvinced that the message of Christ and the apostles has not been well preserved (even if the people preserving it were fallible!).
Re-read the story of the blindman who was healed “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!” (John 9:13-34). The better question is whether God’s commendation of one who puts her faith in Christ depends on whether she believes the church can define irreformable articles of faith or not. I tend to lean towards our justification depending on the object of our faith rather than the quality of our faith.
My view is that the doctrine of infallibility is unnecessary to establish the truth claims of historic (o)rthodox Christianity and the authority of the Scriptures. I understand that people disagree, and since its a free country, they are free to do so and start a new church (ain’t america grand!) – whether it is a cafeteria catholic’s church of 1 (I’m looking at you Tom) or 500 people who start a commune in the Central America (the people’s church is for you Curt, but I wouldn’t drink the Kool-ade). Lot’s of people believe lots of crazy things (UFOs, YEC, a flat earth, Galileo was wrong, danger of vaccines, Shakespeare didn’t write Hamlet, etc…). The fact that I’m fallible doesn’t make me less certain that these folks are wrong. So if the infallibility of the church isn’t necessary, why did the Roman church adopt it? One might look at the role that political pressure played in the development of Roman dogma. They got a lot of things wrong…not everything, but enough to need serious reform (then and now). The clericalism that characterizes your church is dangerous to the souls of the people in your church.
LikeLike
So again, Do you say the NT believer who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher of the OT is in no better shape than the NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter? If no, then that’s the difference.
In both cases, the agents submitting fallibly interpret. I posit that fact does not entail “Your situation is precisely identical to the Protestant inerrantist’s position.” If you think it does entail that, then I’d like to know how you can also answer no to the above question, and also explain why Rome’s claims to divine authority/infallibility are not therefore superfluous and irrelevant (which your colleagues here as well as your broader tradition for the past 500 years feel compelled to criticize at length, so it doesn’t seem superfluous).
DVC incoherence much?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Apparently my second paragraph did not clarify anything. So, in the example, is the first person justified in giving their assent of faith to such authority? Is the second person?
Secondly, in giving the assent of faith to an authority, does one thereby achieve greater certitude than one who does not, or is faith and authority completely irrelevant to certitude and “certitude of faith” is nonsensical?
Zrim,
“CvD, so the Bible can’t be infallible across time, place, and content unless its human authors were?”
You are the one positing that the pope cannot be infallible unless he is infallible 24/7, not me. You admit the apostles are not infallible 24/7 but aren’t rending garments over it. So I don’t know why you persist with the double standard.
And the Bible apparently is infallible across time and place – well except when we reinterpret instructions according to time and place – and is infallible in content – well except when we asterisk passages, let alone the fact that the identification itself of the content/extent of the Bible remains provisional according to your principles (fallible collection).
“But if I’m exercising private judgment about what the infallible Bible says in certain places (about headcoverings, etc.), that must mean you’re vying for the ability to do so with the Pope–otherwise you’re as guilty of dispensing with qualification and nuance as I am.”
I’m vying for the ability of the Magisterium to do it (which is consistent with its principles). That’s why there’s development. But…how can he be infallible then? We just saw how you disregard such questioning when applied to your own position.
“Once again, why is it kosher for you to exercise private judgment in relation to your infallible source but when we do it not so much?”
Because in one case, nothing can ever rise above reformable opinion. In another case, it can. We all fallibly interpret – we’re all human – that does not entail everyone is in same shape as I’ve repeated above with Christ/Apostles authority parallel.
Darryl,
“lame fox, so what’s the point of ex cathedra if all the other affirmations are also infallible”
What’s the point of other books of Scripture if each one is infallible? Just because EC is a subset of infallibility, I have no idea how it follows that means it’s superfluous.
“If Christ submitted to the authority of Scripture, and didn’t follow a pope, why wouldn’t you?”
Rome holds Scripture as authoritative. Christ was also infallible and had divine authority, that authority he passed on to the apostles. Not sure why he did that according to your view – he should’ve just told everyone to read the OT harder I guess.
sdb,
“I’m quite certain that Nicea is true, but it is not because of a philosophical precommitment to the infallibility of the church.”
Right so everything remains provisional. Semper reformanda. It’s akin to you in NT times submitting to Christ/Apostles authority, but only because they agree with your current interpretation of the OT – you reserve the right to continue to hold any of their current and future teaching in a dock and discard it as your interpretation changes. So you didn’t really submit to anything – nothing changed before and after.
“But submission is not all or nothing. The NT tells us explicitly to submit to governing authorities, but it is also clear from the NT, that that submission is contingent on the authorities not demanding that we do something that is wrong.”
Is your submission to the NT all or nothing? Or is the identification of the NT provisional according to your principles? Does Christ ask for all or nothing submission? If so, is he violating Scripture since you use it to support qualified submission?
“Only Christ and his word is infallible. In so far as Paul accurately passed on what we he was told, his message was infallible. Paul wasn’t infallible. ”
So Paul and the Apostles had no divine authority? So Paul was never infallible even when writing Scripture? He was only fallibly passing along an infallible message? “In so far as accurately” – is that why the canon and the asterisked passages remain provisional?
“If Paul contradicted the scripture, then of course.”
I agree. But Paul was also writing Scripture. That’s why SS wasn’t applicable during the apostolic age, by definition. That’s why your use of “if he should contradict the gospel message” doesn’t make sense – he preached the message in the first place that needs to be accepted as the baseline.
“He did not preach that message under his authority. The message was preached under the authority of Christ by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
Of course – who divorces apostolic authority from given through divine authority? But he and the apostles had that authority. Not random Jew a or b offering their interpretation of the OT.
“My point is that you don’t need to be infallible to get that right.”
In supernatural matters and articles of faith, we must take things on the authority of another. That’s why the analogies of history/science etc don’t work since they presume natural and supernatural revelation are identical.
“So if the infallibility of the church isn’t necessary, why did the Roman church adopt it?”
The same reason the East “adopted” it – things of faith are not to be built on houses of sand as Robert said; they are not to be reduced to provisional opinion (if they are, I have no reason to give my assent of faith to them).
LikeLike
Answers the question with a question. Surprise surprise..
Peace, friend.
LikeLike
CVD: Apparently my second paragraph did not clarify anything.
No, sorry.
CVD: So, in the example, is the first person justified in giving their assent of faith to such authority? Is the second person?
Secondly, in giving the assent of faith to an authority, does one thereby achieve greater certitude than one who does not, or is faith and authority completely irrelevant to certitude and “certitude of faith” is nonsensical?
I can answer those questions, but I’m not interesting in dialoguing with myself (except when solving math problems).
You clearly think there is a difference between the two groups. No need to be coy! What is that difference? I’m not qualified to give your answer.
LikeLike
lame fox, “Just because EC is a subset of infallibility, I have no idea how it follows that means it’s superfluous.”
Not the only option. Could be that it can’t bear the intellectual and psychological weight that you paradigists (read Hegelians) give it.
LikeLike
The Cletus/CTC approach might be more coherent if they would just go ahead and claim infallibility for themselves. At the end of the day, they’re trusting in their fallible interpretation of an infallible source. The truth of their argument that they are doing anything different than a Protestant presumes that they themselves are infallible, and yet none of them will claim that for themselves. They’re living their lives based on their fallibility.
LikeLike
Saw in the real estate transfers that we just got a new Eastern Orthodox Church in Ames. They paid $150k for a building downtown left behind by a Lutheran Church that moved to the outskirts of town (The Lutherans immediately added 150 people on Sunday mornings, demonstrating that church growth is location, location, location).
http://amesorthodox.org/
LikeLike
You are the one positing that the pope cannot be infallible unless he is infallible 24/7, not me. You admit the apostles are not infallible 24/7 but aren’t rending garments over it. So I don’t know why you persist with the double standard.
CvD, what double standard? I’m saying the Bible alone is infallible 24/7/365 but men are not, neither those who penned the Bible (and would seem to have every reason to claim personal infallibility but don’t) nor those who haven’t penned any Scripture (and yet remarkably claim infallibility). So this is one crucial test for the Magisterium: write us some Scripture if you’re so infallible. And if the Pope is not up the task then why not? You guys are forever going on about the fact that the Bible only has authority to the extent that the church compiled the thing. Well, if you’re so authoritative, and if revelation really does continue, then whip up some inspired prophecy, wisdom, parable, gospel, epistle. I triple dog dare you.
LikeLike
Because in one case, nothing can ever rise above reformable opinion. In another case, it can. We all fallibly interpret – we’re all human – that does not entail everyone is in same shape as I’ve repeated above with Christ/Apostles authority parallel.
No CVD, the problem is you want to surreptitiously/implicitly shoehorn in the Roman magisterium along with Christ and the Apostles as equals, (if not superiors in that Christ and the Apostles have no equals and to say they do is to downgrade them and raise their “equals” above them.)
Nobody denies that Christ and the Apostles are infallible and likewise the Apostolic New Testament, it’s all the other cr*p that you want to insist goes with, even as you deny that that is what you are doing.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; Eph. 2:19,20
LikeLike
I’m facing a big time crunch, so I won’t be able to give any real attention to this thread for a week or so. Just a few quick comments:
In principle yes, in practice no. Churches that reject the Nicene Creed are not seen as Christians (they are not welcome to our table).
Should be or is?
I think you answered your own question here. Apostolic authority was unique, yet even they were accountable to the scriptures. These are the most source of divine revelation.
Wait, are you assuming that we prots don’t believe in magisterial authority? You do notice that we have things like church trials and so forth. We just don’t believe that any human authorities are infallible. Even an apostle can err (even more so a Pope or a council).
Science requires authority too. It really isn’t all that different. You wouldn’t be able to analyze the WMAP data yourself – you take what we tell you about the age of the universe on faith in our authority. I agree that supernatural revelation is not identical to natural revelation and my analogy doesn’t require an identity to work. But they are much more similar than you allow. So there are lots of things we know and we aren’t going to hold as provisional in any meaningful sense that we take on faith from fallible authorities. We may allow that these things (e.g., the authorship of Hamlet, danger of smoking, and the age of the universe) could have been erroneously concluded, we don’t live without certainty about these facts. Of course it is a free country, so we have folks who think smoking doesn’t cause cancer, Shakespeare wife wrote all his plays, and the universe is 10,000 years old. But I don’t think claiming infallible authority is going to stop this dissent – inquisitions and the stake are better for that.
Or more likely, to shore up socio-political power. Again, fallibility of the vessel does not mean the truth it holds isn’t reliable. To reduce such knowledge to opinion is a non-sequitor.
LikeLike
Cletus “Right so everything remains provisional.”
SDV: “In principle yes, in practice no.”
This points out how utterly divorced from reality our RC interlocutors are. For them, as long as the principle exists out there, it doesn’t matter what the practice is.
The best example of this is the about-face on the doctrine of the Trinity and its necessity for salvation. The Athanasian Creed, reflecting the belief of the catholic (small c) church for hundreds of years (it still does among confessional Protestants), specifically says that belief in the Trinity is required for salvation. Rome comes along at V2, and now teaches that Trinity-hating Muslims are going to heaven.
But we’re supposed to be assuaged because in principle the doctrine of salvation can’t change. In practice it has changed, and continues to change. The issue is that the divorce between practice and principle is so artificial in Romanism, at least among our more conservative RC interlocutors, that change in practice changes the doctrine. I’m not sure how a church body can be meaningfully Trinitarian when it allows for Trinity-haters to go to heaven, but there you go.
Meanwhile, us confessional Protestants while holding to the infallibility of the church in principle, don’t open the door of salvation to Trinity-haters like Rome does. If the Roman paradigm is so superior, why does it endorse Trinity-denial when so many of the church fathers died to confess that doctrine? Why does it allow Trinity-haters such as Muhammad into heaven?
Oh I know, invincible ignorance covers a multitude of sins. Of course, while the Bible does allow a place for ignorance in mitigating the consequences of sins, ignorance doesn’t get you off the hook. The ignorant still get beaten, just with fewer lashes. (Luke 12:47–48)
So much for Rome’s self-evident superiority.
LikeLike
That is: “we confessional Protestants while denying the infallibility of the church in principle.”
LikeLike
Oh come on, Robert. You know better.
Even now, off in the distance Mr. He Who’s Paradigm May Not Be Falsified and the usual Greek chorus of lick spittle wannabe’s can be heard practicing the mantra “But it wasn’t ex cathedra, but it . . .”.
The eastern and western antichrist deserve each other.
Happy Halaladays.
LikeLike
Robert,
“At the end of the day, they’re trusting in their fallible interpretation of an infallible source.”
Just like NT believers were with Christ/Apostles teaching/interpretation.
“The truth of their argument that they are doing anything different than a Protestant presumes that they themselves are infallible, and yet none of them will claim that for themselves.”
The truth of the argument of the “NT believers who submitted to Christ/Apostles’ authority as infallible interpreter/teacher” that they are doing anything different than a “NT Jew who submitted to some random Jew offering his self-admitted fallible interpretation of the OT and claiming no such authority as infallible interpreter/teacher” presumes that they themselves are infallible, yet none of them will claim that for themselves.
Zrim,
“I’m saying the Bible alone is infallible 24/7/365”
If the problem is you want infallible 24/7 teaching – there are many examples of that in RC teaching. So are we done with the double standard?
“So this is one crucial test for the Magisterium: write us some Scripture if you’re so infallible.”
When Paul was preaching, would a Jew be justified in saying “write us some Scripture if you’re so infallible” before accepting his authority?
Bob,
“No CVD, the problem is you want to surreptitiously/implicitly shoehorn in the Roman magisterium along with Christ and the Apostles as equals”
Thanks again for demonstrating how the “we all fallibly interpret so we’re all in the same boat” canard is a smokescreen.
“Nobody denies that Christ and the Apostles are infallible”
sdb: “Paul wasn’t infallible.” Zrim apparently agrees with him.
“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”
I agree. But I don’t follow SS. What happened?
sdb,
“Apostolic authority was unique, yet even they were accountable to the scriptures.”
I know you don’t believe it, but RCism teaches it is accountable to the Scriptures. The ability to authoritatively interpret/teach does not entail being overlord; Paul was accountable to Scripture even as he infallibly interpreted/taught on it.
“Wait, are you assuming that we prots don’t believe in magisterial authority? You do notice that we have things like church trials and so forth. We just don’t believe that any human authorities are infallible.”
Right and if they’re not infallible, the “authority” (church trials, confessions, etc) is ever-provisional and a paper tiger – it can never escape that because of the starting principles/standards. That was my point when I said “It’s akin to you in NT times submitting to Christ/Apostles authority, but only because they agree with your current interpretation of the OT – you reserve the right to continue to hold any of their current and future teaching in a dock and discard it as your interpretation changes. So you didn’t really submit to anything – nothing changed before and after.”
As for authority of church trials, did you guys affirm the outcome of Leithart’s trial?
“Even an apostle can err (even more so a Pope or a council).”
So how do you then accept their teaching in the first place as a baseline standard to then compare against for error (my point with Paul preaching gospel).
“Again, fallibility of the vessel does not mean the truth it holds isn’t reliable. To reduce such knowledge to opinion is a non-sequitor.”
One can believe something that is of faith. But to believe it by faith, one needs a divine authority (hence infallible). That’s why Protestant bodies/confessions never define any truth as infallible, because in doing so they would violate their own starting principles/standards, it’s precluded from the outset.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Just like NT believers were with Christ/Apostles teaching/interpretation.
Yes, Cletus. Every mental act, every point at which we trust anything is based on our fallible reading of a source. Are you able to infallibly interpret the Magisterium? No. You’re fallibly trusting in your infallible source. Yours is just a whole lot bigger, though nobody knows how big it really is. Nobody really even knows the extent of the church anymore, since apparently we’re all somehow a part of it, except when we’re not.
LikeLike
Cletus,
You have to understand how silly it looks to Protestants for Rome to claim infallibility for itself and then not be able to agree on whether homosexual orientation is an inherent good or not. Any honest reading of Scripture and 2,000 years of church history must conclude that it is not. There really is no question. There’s been nothing in either “source” to say otherwise. Yet the very body that is supposed to infallibly guard the truth is debating the question?
You may disagree with us, but surely you should be able to sympathize with us. I can at least sympathize with Roman complaints about Protestant division.
LikeLike
Once again Devious Von Catholicus demonstrates that he can’t follow an argument. Or much much worse, doesn’t want to. Consequently his comments may be ignored because his fundamental supporting arguments, such as they are/so called, collapse under examination.
Again.
Bob: No CVD, the problem is you want to surreptitiously/implicitly shoehorn in the Roman magisterium along with Christ and the Apostles as equals.
DVC: Thanks again for demonstrating how the “we all fallibly interpret so we’re all in the same boat” canard is a smokescreen.
Smokescreen warning. Wait for it.
SBD“Apostolic authority was unique, yet even they were accountable to the scriptures.”
DVC: I know you don’t believe it, but RCism teaches it is accountable to the Scriptures. The ability to authoritatively interpret/teach does not entail being overlord; Paul was accountable to Scripture even as he infallibly interpreted/taught on it.
Plainly put the bait and switch argument/shell game of the latter is:
Because Paul was accountable to Scripture
Paul could infallibly teach/interpret Scripture,
∴ But then Rome can infallibly teach/interpret Scripture because Rome is accountable to Scripture.
Obviously the implicit assumption/missing middle term is that Rome is equal to the Apostle Paul.
Rather because Paul is an Apostle, Eph. 2:20,
Paul can infallibly pen Scripture, much more infallibly interpret/teach it.
But Rome is neither an Apostle, nor does it possess apostolic authority.
QED . . . .
Question:Just what can’t be shoehorned into the Cinderella’s Paradigm?
LikeLike
If the problem is you want infallible 24/7 teaching – there are many examples of that in RC teaching. So are we done with the double standard? When Paul was preaching, would a Jew be justified in saying “write us some Scripture if you’re so infallible” before accepting his authority?
CvD, well, if by “infallible” you mean “correct” then I’ve no qualm with you. The RCC teaches plenty of correct doctrine. I’m not sure why you need to say it’s taught infallibly in order to believe it. I mean, if I say the earth isn’t flat or the heart pumps blood to the body, do you really need to think of me as infallible before you believe those utterances? Like me, you believe all sorts of things every day that perfectly fallible people tell you because they’ve mined it from natural and reliable sources. Why can’t you do the same with fallible people mining religious truth from a supernatural and reliable source (the Bible)?
But Paul didn’t claim personal infallibility. In fact, even after his direct revelation he submitted himself to the other apostles for examination. Again, if anybody had reason to think he was personally infallible, it was Paul. And yet, not so much. Unique authority, yes, but not personal infallibility. There’s a difference.
LikeLike
One can believe something that is of faith. But to believe it by faith, one needs a divine authority (hence infallible). That’s why Protestant bodies/confessions never define any truth as infallible, because in doing so they would violate their own starting principles/standards, it’s precluded from the outset.
Rodger, the WCF confesses that neither the Bible nor God is infallible.
Who knew?
LikeLike
Meanwhile, the average lay RC well understands that the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility is no help to them in real life:
According to Pew, the percentage of Catholic-born people flocking to Protestant churches has steadily grown in recent decades in nearly all 18 countries and Puerto Rico where the poll was conducted. “In most of the countries surveyed, at least a third of current Protestants were raised in the Catholic Church, and half or more say they were baptized as Catholics,” the authors of the report said.
Former Catholics who have embraced Protestantism most frequently cited a desire for a personal connection with God for leaving their original faith. Others said they wanted a different style of worship or a church that helps its members more.
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-latin-america-catholics-steadily-leave-faith-050615912.html
The article specifically asserts that the hemorrhaging of RCs in Latin America is a big reason for Francis’ election. Makes sense on a practical level, though one wonders how confident we might be in Rome’s infallibility if it makes decisions based on retaining market share.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Every mental act, every point at which we trust anything is based on our fallible reading of a source. Are you able to infallibly interpret the Magisterium? No. You’re fallibly trusting in your infallible source.”
Never been disputed.
“whether homosexual orientation is an inherent good or not”
Is that the actual focus of the debate?
And I see your yahoo article and raise you http://cvcomment.org/2013/03/04/challenging-the-myth-of-catholic-decline/
Bob,
“Obviously the implicit assumption/missing middle term is that Rome is equal to the Apostle Paul.”
Rome claims apostolic authority. You reject that obviously. But that’s the real point of contention, not “everyone fallibly interprets so we’re all in same boat and CtC apologetic is inconsistent and self-defeating” as you originally asserted which kicked off this party.
Anyways, the point to sdb was not to demonstrate Rome has apostolic authority, it was merely to point out that the ability to authoritatively/infallibly teach or interpret Scripture does not entail the authority is somehow overlord or unaccountable to it.
“Rodger, the WCF confesses that neither the Bible nor God is infallible.”
The WCF claims for itself only provisional authority. So you’re still stuck in the boat.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Never been disputed.
Then the point of the CTC apologetic is what then?
RC—Infallible source is the Bible plus the Magisterium
Protestants—Infallible source is the Bible
Both of us are fallible. Your infallible source is just bigger. Same boat.
Anyways, the point to sdb was not to demonstrate Rome has apostolic authority, it was merely to point out that the ability to authoritatively/infallibly teach or interpret Scripture does not entail the authority is somehow overlord or unaccountable to it.
Rome is most definitely overlord over Scripture and tradition. Scripture and tradition are whatever Rome says they are. Neither is self-attesting, but somehow the church is. If Rome doesn’t agree with a particular element or writing, it’s not tradition. If Rome does, it is tradition.
LikeLike
Rome claims apostolic authority. You reject that obviously.
No CVD. Your own stupid/unreasonable argument rejects it.
Like I said incoherent much?
There’s arguably 3 if not 4 things going on here.
The prot argument and your distortion of it/inability to refute it. (2 things)
The Roman argument and your distortion of it/inability to rationally defend it. (1 if not 2 things)
Even worse (for Rome) Paul, an apostle Eph.2:20 who could infallibly teach and interpret Scripture, commends the Bereans for searching the (OT) Scripture to see that his “reasoning from Scripture” (Act 17:2,18:4) was true.
The inference is 1. it was possible that the Bereans could understand Paul (perspicuity) and 2. it was possible that they then could adequately judge for themselves whether his gospel was the fulfillment and culmination of the OT on the basis of OT Scripture (private judgement) — rather than just take his word for it – and/or arguably the Roman magisterium who has supposedly come in his place and office.
IOW fallible men can recognize and know infallible truth. Enough so that there is no need for Rome’s supposed infallibility as yet another layer between the reasonable soul of a Christian and the infallible self interpreting perspicuous and sufficient Word of God (WCF1).
The WCF claims for itself only provisional authority. So you’re still stuck in the boat.
The WCF acknowledges that the Word of God claims infallibility for both itself and God, but never Rome.
Neither is the Word of God or God provisional.
But if they are and Rome consequently needs to supplement one or the other – as it claims to do in adding Tradition to the Word and with its pseudo Aaronic priests turning bread into a god – then all bets are off and either Rome replaces the third person of the Trinity or we believe in the Quadrinity.
Now that’s what you call orthodoxy according to Sola Ecclesia.
LikeLike
lame fox, “I know you don’t believe it, but RCism teaches it is accountable to the Scriptures.”
Perpetual virginity of Mary?
LikeLike
Zrim, correct teaching needs to be infallible because “they” need to have Derek Jeter on their team.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Then the point of the CTC apologetic is what then? ”
I’d like to avoid retyping this entire thread. Look at the Christ/Apostles and 2 NT Jews example that was already given repeatedly. Look at the difference in starting claims/principles between RCism and Protestantism. Look at what I pointed to sdb in terms of nothing changing after submission. That agents who submit are all fallible in their submission (i.e. human) is irrelevant to the difference; the difference is what the “CTC apologetic” is pointing out.
“Both of us are fallible. Your infallible source is just bigger. Same boat.”
Not at all, as has been pointed out already. You recognize the difference, hence why your side rails against RCs claims to divine authority/infallibility; such claims (and your criticisms) would be superfluous if it was same boat.
Bob,
I agree the Bereans looked to Scripture. But they would not have been commended had they rejected his message and authority based on their interpretation. Nor is Paul embracing OT sola scriptura. Are you an OT SS? Was SS operative during inscripturation? No, by definition, so using ghm exegesis which is what determines meaning for you, how can any of his writings be teaching SS when written?
“fallible men can recognize and know infallible truth.”
Of course they can. Humans are all fallible. But knowing something that is of faith is not the same as knowing something by faith.
“Enough so that there is no need for Rome’s supposed infallibility as yet another layer between the reasonable soul of a Christian and the infallible self interpreting perspicuous and sufficient Word of God (WCF1).”
Enough so that there is no need for Christ and the Apostles’ supposed infallibility as yet another layer between the reasonable soul of a Jew and the infallible self interpreting perspicuous and sufficient OT.
“The WCF acknowledges that the Word of God claims infallibility for both itself and God, but never Rome.”
The WCF claims for itself (and hence all the claims therein) only provisional authority. So you’re still stuck in the boat.
“Neither is the Word of God or God provisional.”
Is your identification of the Word of God provisional based on the principles WCF endorses for itself? How can a fallible and provisional collection of books/passages serve as the sole infallible authority? Isn’t it kind of important for the identified canon/scope of it to be infallible for that to work?
LikeLike
Darryl, then maybe “their” claims to having Thee Infallible Interpreter® are like claiming Jeter is a product of New Jersey instead of Michigan.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Not at all, as has been pointed out already. You recognize the difference, hence why your side rails against RCs claims to divine authority/infallibility; such claims (and your criticisms) would be superfluous if it was same boat.
Wrong. We rail against the claims because they are blasphemous, unsupported by Scripture, and frankly, historically laughable. At the point of what individuals are doing, however, we’re both fallible people submitting to sources that claim infallibility for themselves.
I’d like to avoid retyping this entire thread. Look at the Christ/Apostles and 2 NT Jews example that was already given repeatedly. Look at the difference in starting claims/principles between RCism and Protestantism.
Starting claims of Protestantism: Jesus is infallible and He has spoken infallibly only through Scripture.
Starting claims of Romanism: Jesus is infallible and He has spoken infallibly through Scripture, the Apostolic bones, some traditions that are located somewhere in the consensus, except when they aren’t, and the pope but just on Thursdays when he takes his shower on time. I digress.
We can keep going at this, but the only difference in the claim between us is that the source that speaks infallibly is bigger than ours. Plus you sneak in the idea that the church is equivalent to Christ with the same authority that he has, but that usually goes unstated.
This is why the CTC apologetic is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Starting claims of Protestantism: Jesus is infallible and He has spoken infallibly only through Scripture.”
Starting claims of Protestantism: We have no infallible/divine authority (and actively reject such) to define infallible articles of faith, so anything we offer is provisional (including our identification of Scripture and its teachings) to be consistent with that principle. Semper reformanda.
“We can keep going at this, but the only difference in the claim between us is that the source that speaks infallibly is bigger than ours.”
Wrong again. One source claims divine authority to define/identify irreformable articles of faith. The other doesn’t. That has nothing to do with the data set size.
“Plus you sneak in the idea that the church is equivalent to Christ with the same authority that he has, but that usually goes unstated.”
I’m not sneaking in anything. It’s recognized on both sides that Rome makes the claim to apostolic/divine authority. Hence the difference between the two starting principles. Hence the railing against that (which again is superfluous if “we all fallibly interpret so we’re all in same boat”).
“This is why the CTC apologetic is ridiculous.”
Look at the Christ/Apostles and 2 NT Jews example that was already given repeatedly. Look at the difference in starting claims/principles between RCism and Protestantism. Look at what I (and the Knox quote) pointed to sdb in terms of nothing changing after submission. That agents who submit are all fallible in their submission (i.e. human) is irrelevant to the difference; the difference is what the “CTC apologetic” is pointing out.
LikeLike
Bravo to Clete on the Yeoman’s effort to get us to 1,000 comments on this thread. This is a Rand Paul-like filibuster.
LikeLike
If someone would post to give me a nudge by posting a comment to highlight it, when this reaches 964 to become the new leader at OL, I’d appreciate it. I hate missing when my car hits 100,000 miles, numbers guy and all that. And congrats on surpassing Why Republication Matters. Erik, we must be CPAs with these kinds of strange quirks and amusements (though I know you scored higher on your exam, I barely got licsened, shh…). Adios.
LikeLike
We’ve looked at it. You keep asserting it. Your repeated assertions don’t make it more convincing.
LikeLike
This assertion is false, or at the very least you need to demonstrate it. I’ve given you an example of how a fallible authority can provide true information. You’ve responded that the study of nature and articles of faith are different. I agree, but my argument does not require that they be identical. If you want to be convincing, then you need to show why assent to the truth about articles of faith is dependent on an infallible authority while assent to the truth about nature on faith does not require an infallible authority.
1) It is not clear why one needs a divine authority (presumably you mean a human authority given that authority by God) “to believe it by faith”.
2) Your “hence” does not follow. Even given that one needs a divine authority to believe by faith, it is not clear that the authority must be infallible.
3) Your “That’s why…” doesn’t follow either. Even if the previous two statements were true, they are not the reasons Prots never defiance any truth as infallible. Nor is it clear that this is the case.
Now perhaps by divine authority you mean the Holy Spirit working in the life of the individual believer. If so, that’s something else and I’ve already spent too much time responding…
LikeLike
The CtC Apologetic in black and white because CVD can’t/won’t tell us what it is:
You can’t know till Rome says so.
But how do we know Rome said so?
Cause we said so.
But if we can understand your say so, how come we can’t understand Christ and the apostles’s say so in the New Testament?
Cause we said so.
But this is not invincible and incorrigible arrogance?
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom. 1:22
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. John 9:39-41
LikeLike
sdb,
“We’ve looked at it. You keep asserting it. Your repeated assertions don’t make it more convincing.”
You can disprove it quite easily. Show what changed after you submitted to the authority of WCF that doesn’t contradict its own principles. If you could show the authority you submit to can define/identify irreformable articles of faith (rather than rejecting that claim and ability at the outset) then you’d be on your way to showing something changed after submission. But you won’t – semper reformanda.
“You’ve responded that the study of nature and articles of faith are different. I agree, but my argument does not require that they be identical. If you want to be convincing, then you need to show why assent to the truth about articles of faith is dependent on an infallible authority while assent to the truth about nature on faith does not require an infallible authority. ”
Because natural truths can be gained by natural reason. Supernatural/divine truths cannot by definition. If you’d like to equate the two and reduce faith to stark rationalism, good luck.
“1) It is not clear why one needs a divine authority (presumably you mean a human authority given that authority by God) “to believe it by faith”.”
Do you put faith in divine authorities or do you put faith in natural authorities in order to ascertain supernatural/divine truths? Is it fideistic to put faith into admitted provisional opinions or authorities who can only offer such by their own principles? If not, why not?
“2) Your “hence” does not follow. Even given that one needs a divine authority to believe by faith, it is not clear that the authority must be infallible.”
I see – so divine authority can be fallible? How would that work exactly. Christ and the Apostles were fallible divine authorities in their teaching and interpretation?
“3) Your “That’s why…” doesn’t follow either. Even if the previous two statements were true, they are not the reasons Prots never defiance any truth as infallible. Nor is it clear that this is the case.”
If Protestantism rejects the ability to define any infallible articles of faith, then obviously its bodies/confessions cannot then turn around and do that without violating their own principles and being inconsistent.
LikeLike
Do you put faith in divine authorities or do you put faith in natural authorities in order to ascertain supernatural/divine truths? Is it fideistic to put faith into admitted provisional opinions or authorities who can only offer such by their own principles? If not, why not?
If Protestantism rejects the ability to define any infallible articles of faith, then obviously its bodies/confessions cannot then turn around and do that without violating their own principles and being inconsistent.
Incoherence much?
How about wilful stupidity?
Scripture is not a divine authority?
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not infallible articles of the protestant faith?
Protestantism is protestantism without them? .
How many times do we have to go through this Catholicus Von Duncius?
LikeLike
If you could show the authority you submit to can define/identify irreformable articles of faith (rather than rejecting that claim and ability at the outset)
Scripture is not an authority that defines irreformable articles of faith? Who knew?
then you’d be on your way to showing something changed after submission. But you won’t – semper reformanda.
Stupid much?
LikeLike
Bob,
“Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not infallible articles of the protestant faith?”
Do the confessions claim themselves to be infallible or provisional in their teachings/interpretations and authority?
“Stupid much?”
Charming as usual. The point is semper reformanda shoots itself in the foot if you want to posit irreformable teachings/interpretations are possible according to your principles – the two are incompatible.
“Scripture is not a divine authority?”
So each book claims divine authority for itself (and also excludes all others not in your canon), right? Fallible provisional collection of books and passages right? So how would it function as the sole infallible authority in that case?
LikeLike
Bob, like the CTCers before him, he’s not paying attention.
Hammer time?
LikeLike
So each book claims divine authority for itself (and also excludes all others not in your canon), right? Fallible provisional collection of books and passages right? So how would it function as the sole infallible authority in that case?
Does the Magisterium explicitly identify every single infallible truth that must be believed for salvation? No. Does.the magisterium infallibly understand and apply every article of faith it has defined? According to several RCs I’ve talked to, no. Sounds like a pretty fallible and provisional system to me, especially since a plurality of your bishops want to value homosexual orientation now, and an even greater number of the laity wants them to.
LikeLike
Yo Dunce Much, how many times do we have to go through this? How short is your attention span? IQ? Love of the truth?
Ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
“The reformed church is always being reformed by the Word of God”.
And after you get through reading WCF 1 on the difference before and after the close of canon and how God chooses to reveal himself, never mind the cease and desist of the apostolic signs and wonder, get back to us.
But not until.
Of course, when you can prove that the apostolic bones are really the apostolic bones, along with an infallible list of both the lost Apostolic Oral Traditions and the pope’s Infallible Ex Cathedra Judgements that good little roman drone consciences are bound to, then maybe we’ll talk about proving that Scripture is Scripture to your satisfaction.
Until then idolize on. Keep the candles and incense burning, the rosaries droning. The Statue of the Unknown Saint is Always Awake to hear your concerns and complaints and ready to forward them on to Management. Really.
LikeLike
lame fox, I’m glad Old Life is a play station for you. You and Bryan excel at trying to get to check mate. All the logic and paradigms in the world don’t get you the Holy Spirit.
Do you really believe this stuff? Or is it simply a contest?
LikeLike
Here’s Bryan’s bell cow. Audacity of the Pope takes on a completely different tone
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-j-reid-jr/cardinal-raymond-burke_b_6154122.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
” The traditionalist movement is not widely known. It is centered around devotion to the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass and a restoration of the elaborate liturgical rituals of the Renaissance and Baroque periods. During his time in La Crosse, Burke’s most direct contribution to this movement was to found a traditionalist men’s religious order, the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem.
The Order is entirely pre-Vatican II. Now headquartered in West Virginia, the Canons celebrate the old pre-Vatican II Latin Mass and follow the pre-Vatican liturgical calendar. To take one small example: Even though the rest of the Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of Christ the King in mid-November, Cardinal Burke’s Order prefers to do it in late October, the way it was done before 1965.
Nor is this the only traditionalist movement Burke has supported. In St. Louis, according to one priest, he brought in “hermits . . . or consecrated virgins” who were “just not psychologically equipped” for the lives they vowed to lead, but who shared Burke’s hostility and suspicions about the larger world.”
“The circle gathered around Burke is a fringe movement. They are dissidents in the truest sense of that word. Cardinal Burke blames the modern liturgy for “moral corruption?” Really. Such allegations are best treated as a kind of bad joke. He has waged an eighteenth-month long campaign of vilification directed at the sitting Pope. It is unthinkable that a Cardinal should attempt to sow such discord in the Church.
In a misguided column in late October, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat warned Pope Francis against “reassign[ing] potential critics in the hierarchy.” This was clearly a veiled reference to Burke’s impending dismissal from the Signatura. Douthat’s concern was that the Pope might thereby prompt a schism.
A schism is not going to happen. Raymond Burke and his tiny band of followers are not about to march into that wilderness. What is happening, however, is that Pope Francis is not indulging the traditionalists in the way Pope Benedict once did. The Pope knows well how few the traditionalists are in numbers and how self-referential is their focus. There are not many Catholics who are moved to tears at the sight of Renaissance vestments; or who long for a return to liturgies in a foreign tongue; or who wish to repudiate fifty years of development since Vatican II. Not many Catholic women want to return to the days of wearing scarves or head coverings at Mass. I can appreciate nostalgia within limits, but the Burkean project is nostalgia for a golden age, a romanticized past that never was and that cannot be recreated now.”
LikeLike
You know, I was wondering the same thing… Or to paraphrase Wesley, “Truly, they have a dizzying intellect.” CVD seems to think repeating “semper refromada” along with the same assertions over and over is a compelling argument. Maybe it’s just his way of helping us get to 1000 comments. But since he isn’t infallible, I guess even if I bought his argument nothing would change…or something.
I see that our other RC apologist extraordinaire has this to same for himself,
I’m not so sure about the homework bit, but I think the jerk part is definitely right. I suspect that Bryan’s sophistry attracts a certain kind of wannabe intellectual…ugh.
LikeLike
Cletus: If you could show the authority you submit to can define/identify irreformable articles of faith
That authority is the Scripture. It defines irreformable articles of faith, such as
and
These are articles of faith, defined and irreformable. Done.
LikeLike
These are articles of faith, defined and irreformable. Done.
“But. But. But that’s just your . . .” sputters the papist in continuous play/repeat mode.
Here’s another irreformable truth.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44
LikeLike
“Nor is this the only traditionalist movement Burke has supported. In St. Louis, according to one priest, he brought in “hermits . . . or consecrated virgins” who were “just not psychologically equipped” for the lives they vowed to lead, but who shared Burke’s hostility and suspicions about the larger world.”
LikeLike
D.G. – Do you really believe this stuff? Or is it simply a contest?
Erik – 1,000 baby!
LikeLike
I’ll even endorse Jeff doing some math problems if it gets us there.
“From Paul to Valentinus” arrived yesterday and it does have math in it so I may owe Jeff & CD an apology.
http://www.amazon.com/From-Paul-Valentinus-Christians-Centuries/dp/0800627024
LikeLike
LeBron at the Boston Garden tonight. 41 points.
If the Celtics weren’t terrible it would be fun to have a team with red uniforms play on that green court on Christmas Day.
LikeLike
I argued theology with my mainline Episcopal Calculus teacher over email
From 2009 to 2013. He taught philosophy too. Its basically Tillich (him) vs. all my OP trained brain could muster. Got interesting at times, he even visited his local OP church and reported back his thoughts. Nice, thoughtful retired guy who took time to write me many many emails.
Anyway, thought of him because he told me this guy essentially showed how all mathematical thought up to that point could be overturned by a single proof.
I could say more, but I will save it for another combox, to get us to 1000. I have at least 5 more waiting in the wings, and I could say much about Cletus and infallibility. Ill let him keep doing all the legwork. Tillich vs Machen is a similar fight, discussing infallibiluty (since Tillich on the other side will have none, as opposed to RCs who add to rhe infallible Word, a dead error indeed (Thank the Machen). Enough from my fingers and Nexus 7 tablet. Toodles.
LikeLike
And if you like watching debates, this former OP elder debating a secular humanist was fun to watch while on my elliptical doing my morning run, some months ago, as was Brandons article. I digress, there’s a point where the moderator of that debate says how the audience is filled with people who, no matter what is said, will still disagree with the poont of view put forth. Good times at OL. I forgot, I said toodles, but I can’t let Erik’s name be the only one of the latest 10 comments. Until tomorrow.
LikeLike
If Protestantism rejects the ability to define any infallible articles of faith, then obviously its bodies/confessions cannot then turn around and do that without violating their own principles and being inconsistent.
Are you sure about that?
“Who
are youam I to judge?” pope (that’s POPE to you DVC) Francis.Where’s the unity in the faith and the blind implicit faith submission on your part DVC?
You know, the “I know nutting” (of Sgt. Schultz) unless the Pope instructs me?
Man, they just don’t clone romanists like they used to.
But if the gay are our brethren, the separated can’t be far behind. Get with it, pal or get left behind. Hate to see you get labeled as a hater.
The right hand of limp wristed fellowship to prots is coming soon.
LikeLike
sean, if only Bryan had converted in St. Louis when Burke was archbishop.
LikeLike
sdb, to be fair to Bryan — ahem — I do sense a level of piety that makes him seem inhuman. Lame fox seems to need reassurance and as long as he can find holes in Protestantism, he feels vindicated.
LikeLike
lame fox, while I’m thinking of it: does it ever trouble you that folks like you (and loser ken and Jason and the Callers) are the ones having to defend Roman Catholicism, and the guys with all the apostolicity are no shows on defending the faith once delivered?
LikeLike
@dgh Your generosity is inspiring. By the way, have you been to Dreher’s blog of late? He’s had a couple of posts about the collapse of Catholicism in Latin America. In his latest he points to John Allen’s essay about the dire straights of Latin America despite 500yrs of RC hegemony. Protestant triumphalism can be just as annoying as the RC variety and that the fruit of the reformation has been overstated (the reformation gave us science, capitalism, democracy, and apple pie), but it seems to me that there really is a positive connection between the health of a country (morally and economically) and protestant dominance. It is almost as if all this talk about paradigms and superior moral philosophy is an attempt to paper over the glaring contrast between the stated principles and the revealed practice. I know, I know, none of this falsifies anything in Bryan’s paradigm…
LikeLike
Love it.
LikeLike
I would to, I suppose, if I was RC..
LikeLike
I do enjoy when questions are asked that these guys don’t want to answer. It reveals more than they know. I need to keep a list like Bryan does, so I can link to these next time we reach a thread this long. There, onwards and updards to 1000, doing my part, yo!
LikeLike
That empty barrels make the most noise and empty heads do the most talking is how romanists get to a 1000 and soil their credibility if they so insist.
LikeLike
Wow, and here I thought I was the only one at OL who appreciate the shorter comment threads.
For Bub.
LikeLike
sdb, and the paradigm paradigm also papers over differences among the ethnic Roman Catholics — especially W. Europeans and Latin American.
LikeLike
loser ken, “The point is this, if one wishes to exchange in polemics, one should at least attempt to attack their foes position on grounds which are relevant and grounded in reality. Merely critiquing a claim for not living up to our imaginations standards is silly, immature, and disrespectful.”
Actually, the point is that Jason and the Callers don’t deal with reality. Ross Douthat does as do any number of other Roman Catholic commentators. Funny thing is, they aren’t apologists. Apologists have to deny reality to make their cause look perfect.
LikeLike
I can see the business card:
Kenneth J. Loserman
Apologist for a Church in Crisis
1-800-Pope-Wins
LikeLike
Bob,
“Ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
“The reformed church is always being reformed by the Word of God”.”
Right and the identification of the Word of God remains perpetually provisional according to your principles (fallible collection, asterisked passages/ongoing textual criticism). So how can the reformed church always be reformed by a standard that itself can always be reformed? And further, how can such a standard then serve as the sole infallible authority?
“And after you get through reading WCF 1 on the difference before and after the close of canon and how God chooses to reveal himself, never mind the cease and desist of the apostolic signs and wonder, get back to us.”
WCF also states:
“It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith…which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence…
All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”
So why should I bother trusting WCF 1 and its statements when it admits they are provisional?
“If Protestantism rejects the ability to define any infallible articles of faith, then obviously its bodies/confessions cannot then turn around and do that without violating their own principles and being inconsistent.
– Are you sure about that?”
Well, I’m certainly open to a demonstration of how my claim is in error. But nothing in your reply addressed it.
Jeff,
Those citations from books in your canon all mentioned God and divine things. They didn’t claim they were the Word of God. Other writings you reject as the Word of God also mention God and divine things, so that cannot be a sufficient condition. And since the identified scope/extent of the canon remains provisional according to your starting principles, I don’t see how you can then say those citations are irreformable articles of faith.
sdb,
If you’d like to resume actual interaction/response of my points, rather than simply asserting they are assertions, I’m all ears. If you feel I’m a “jerk” (a surprising charge given this site – I thought OL took being cranky and thick-skinned as a badge of honor) then I’m sorry you feel that way, it was not my intent; I have merely been defending my stance and examining yours.
Darryl,
“lame fox, I’m glad Old Life is a play station for you. You and Bryan excel at trying to get to check mate.”
Look I am not running around this site hijacking every thread with a Catechism spambot loaded up. You have an infatuation with Stellman/Cross/CtC (so much you created a separate tag category just for them) and excel at trying to somehow trip RCs up by pointing out liberals exist (over and over again) and Mortara was kidnapped. If you’re going to fire off your torpedoes, you have to expect responses and not retreat to “you’re just seeking reassurance and vindication” when pressed. When the tone of all your RC-related articles is “haha stupid RCism” don’t (neither should your regulars) get annoyed or surprised when your own position starts getting examined.
“All the logic and paradigms in the world don’t get you the Holy Spirit.”
No but it’s still important. Otherwise Mormons can just criticize your attempts with the same statement – you wouldn’t buy that criticism.
“and the guys with all the apostolicity are no shows on defending the faith once delivered?”
I feel this needs to be qualified. Some of the hierarchy write works that focus more on defending the faith but indirectly engage Protestantism – for example Ratzinger’s works where he touches on tradition, scripture, and exegesis in relation to Protestant positions; Fr. Peter Stravinskas has written apologetic works and Fr Mitch Pacwa has debated James White multiple times; Cardinal Pell has engaged atheists in debate; priests on call-in radio shows engage Protestant positions regularly, and so forth. But as the laity is much more wide and diverse in terms of their responsibilities and commitments, they can choose to focus on it more or even make a career out of it if their circumstances allow it. Lots of laity write spiritual and devotional works as well, that doesn’t mean the hierarchy doesn’t give a rip about it.
LikeLike
Cletus, you don’t like our OL spambots? I’ll have you know they are treasured members of this theological society, as are you. Price of admission? Post a comment, yo (human or not).
Ciao.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Last I checked, your RC Bible has the same provisional asterisked passages. Oh wait, that’s okay because the Bible isn’t Rome’s rule of faith. Sola Ecclesia.
LikeLike
lame fox, why not thank me for keeping you guys honest? The theory of Rome is one thing. The real world of it from Ross Douthat to Unam Sanctam to Michael Sean Winters is another. Why the apologists don’t ever take those much more substantial voices into account is obvious — it gets in the way of a testimony.
LikeLike
DVC If you can’t distinguish between “may err” and “did err”; between possibility and actuality, then you’re incompetent to the discussion.
Otherwise expect to get played for a fool.
So why should I bother trusting WCF 1 and its statements when it admits they are provisional?
Well compare Trent and the WCF.
Prots were anathematized but now are separated brethren.
The Vulgate is inspired like the Hebrew OT and Greek NT.
Show me major boo boos like that in the WCF, which has been revised since 1648 when it comes to the separation of church and state.
“If Protestantism rejects the ability to define any infallible articles of faith, then obviously its bodies/confessions cannot then turn around and do that without violating their own principles and being inconsistent.
– Are you sure about that?”
Well, I’m certainly open to a demonstration of how my claim is in error. But nothing in your reply addressed it.
How come you can expect us to understand your comments, much more grovel at your wisdom, but the God who created all things in heaven and earth can’t quite make himself clear in his own revelation when one, that is his stated purpose, much more that two, if “revelation” can’/doesn’t reveal something, then it categorically is not revelation. Duh. Or are we just pretending to be stupid?
FTM Scripture itself defines the infallible things,
You know, “all Scripture is God breathed” 2 Tim. 3:16.
And while not all things in Scripture are clear, “yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. [ Psalm 119:105. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. 130. The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.]WCF 1:7
IOW Protestantism defers to Scripture rather than boasting in itself.
You have an infatuation with Stellman/Cross/CtC . . . .
Your stupidity/ignorance of the PIP/WCF is at least honest, though becoming less and less by the day. Bryan’s is smug, despicable and damning. The whole contrived charade regarding Mormonism which supposedly pushed him over the edge, is a joke. If he doesn’t believe the prot answer to Utah’s version of the magisterium, it ought to be easy to demonstrate why he got TKOed. But he can’t be bothered to even acknowledge it, never mind refute the classic protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture in his race to slobber over the pope, mariolatry, purgatory etc.
And motives of credibility? Just what exactly does he think WCF 1:5 is.
If Rome is a meretricious fraud, CtC is that and more as it perjures itself with only nominal claims to being ex prot all the while prattling about begging the question and making “sense of all the available historical, biblical, patristic, and philosophical data, in relation to the other available paradigms “.
Or examining “the fit between the those doctrines and the evidence from history, philosophy, patristics, Scripture, etc., in comparison to that provided by the other available paradigms” (Bryan Cross, Posted February 19, 2013 at 9:28 pm | Permalink)
cheers
LikeLike
The shared religious heritage that hardly fixed Christian-Muslim relations during the Middle Ages:
LikeLike
Are you and KW one and the same? My comment above wasn’t about any offense I took, I just don’t have time to interact with a coffeehouse gadfly who argues for sport.
LikeLike
Richard McBrien died:
LikeLike
More on McBrien:
LikeLike
Gullibility alert. It’s always, always, always darkest before noonday.
And Pope Francis is channeling Pius X.
LikeLike
Everything is sugar and spice (even the Crusades and Inquisition?):
LikeLike
Francis Phillips doesn’t see what Bryan and the Jasons see:
The problem is, for Roman Catholics to get to Jesus you need to go through Peter.
LikeLike
How exactly is this a recipe for avoiding modernism?
Pretty good imitation of Protestantism, even modernist Protestantism. So much for papal audacity.
LikeLike