Rick Warren thinks he is trying to find common ground between Roman Catholics and Protestants. He doesn’t realize he just cut off Jason and the Callers at the knees:
Warren, whose Purpose Driven Life and Purpose Driven Church books have sold millions of copies around the world, recorded a video interview for the Catholic News Service in which he said: “We have far more in common than what divides us.”
He continued: “When you talk about Pentecostals, charismatics, evangelicals, fundamentalists, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians … Well they would all say we believe in the trinity, we believe in the Bible, we believe in the resurrection, we believe salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues.
“Sometimes Protestants think that Catholics worship Mary like she’s another god. But that’s not exactly Catholic doctrine.”
He also referred to the Roman Catholic practice of prayer to the saints, which Protestants reject, saying: “When you understand what they mean by what they’re saying, there’s a whole lot more commonality.
“Now there’s still real differences, no doubt about that. But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we’re on the same team.”
He said that Church unity would realistically be “not a structural unity but a unity of mission. And so, when it comes to the family we are co-workers in the field on this for the protection of what we call the sanctity of life, the sanctity of sex, and the sanctity of marriage. So there’s a great commonality and there’s no division on any of those three.”
I wonder why Rick Warren is on Pope Francis’ A-list but not Bryan Cross. Audacious?
Old Life 
Papists do “not exactly” commit idolatry habitually by worshiping Mary. That Rick is a lion, a rock, a beacon of light.
LikeLike
Kilowatt ken, bry, jace, et all (on the fencers),
Come home to presbyism. This here is your call.
We know you feel the tug, frodo. Let Samwise ease your burden, carry the load, yo.
LikeLike
These stories of “Reformed” folks who turn Catholic (In the case of Stephanie, a Reformed Baptist) are never very convincing in their reasons for swimming the Tiber. They never get into the important Gospel issues that divide. Most that I read about, with the exception of Jason Stellman, don’t try to understand the difficult and controversial issues relevant to the ordo salutis and the history of redemption. From what I can tell from reading these stories is that they never really believed the true biblical and Protestant Gospel. Maybe that is because not many Protestant churches are teaching the Gospel very comprehensively.
As Jack Miller posted at the Heidelblog: The doctrine of the holy gospel is the doctrine of eternal salvation, and on account of our corrupt nature there is nothing more difficult and troublesome for us to learn; that is why this doctrine requires the most faithful, earnest and persistent teaching, instruction and admonition that anyone could ever employ.
—Martin Bucer, Concerning The True Care Of Souls, 181 (HT: Jack Miller)”
LikeLike
Maybe they should’ve had Warren at the Future of Protestantism seminar instead of Leithart.
Biola is a hades-of-a-lot closer than shipping Peter in from Birmingham.
LikeLike
JohnnY, not to mention, how long the queue is:
LikeLike
More money quotes from Robert:
LikeLike
John Yeazel said:
These stories of “Reformed” folks who turn Catholic (In the case of Stephanie, a Reformed Baptist) are never very convincing in their reasons for swimming the Tiber. They never get into the important Gospel issues that divide.
Bingo. Usually its pretty plain that people convert because of some deep-seated psychology need that they think Christ has promised to provide. Or, in Stephanie’s case, its clear she became open to RCism because she had a crush on a RC, who is now her husband.
Not compelling.
LikeLike
D.G. – I wonder why Rick Warren is on Pope Francis’ A-list but not Bryan Cross
Erik – Pope Francis’s exhortation on not being a “monster maker” hasn’t sunk into Bryan’s thick gourd yet. It can’t penetrate the flat cap.
LikeLike
John,
What’s with the lucidity?
Whatever you had for breakfast, queue up for more of it tomorrow.
LikeLike
Erik,
I’m not convinced you and I are believing the same Gospel- at least from what I read from some of your comments. However, I may be wrong:
II Corinthians 10:12 “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves WITH THOSE who commend themselves by themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves are not wise.” The verse makes a comparison— WE are NOT like THOSE people. THEY have an unrighteous standard of judgment.
Most commentators on Philippians 3:18-19 focus on the word “belly” and assume that it means greed, not only the desire for too much food but the lust for money and sinful pleasures. They do not connect “belly” to the desire to have one’s own righteousness from the law, even though that has been the topic of the entire chapter up to that point. But the lust of the flesh is subtle.
The unlawful desires of the flesh are most subtle when it comes to self-righteousness. The law of God should not be blamed for the sin of self-righteousness, even though God has predestined the abuse of the law. When a person thinks that his not tasting and his not touching brings him blessing, that person is not only self-righteous but also an antinomian, because that person is thinking that God is satisfied with something less than perfect obedience to the law.
Colossians 2: 20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all PERISH as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh…
LikeLike
Robert, not to give cover to error, but that seems a bit dismissive. Some of us know what it’s like to have our (Reformed) faith reduced to mere psychological need. Sure, it’s a factor to some extent, but is it not sufficient to keeps things more theological than psychological?
That said, I’m always struck by how these things end up sounding like trading one form of Fundamentalism for another.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Ditto. I think psychoanalysis has its place, but it cuts both ways (as you note). Your psychoanalysis of person “X” can be explained by your own psychosomatic issues.
LikeLike
BA and Z, which is one of the things about KW’s approach that’s grated on (all about) me since he arrived, he makes it all about pop psychology. He’s been reading to much Gladwell in addition to his collection from Harris.
LikeLike
or to continue on, as Zrim you like to point out (and others who thankfully guide me along here) these types of things cut both ways.
my solution, Robert, is simply to stop reading CtC, Creedcode, and other such stuff.I can’t be the only one who saw mockingjay, but srsly, this propoganda war isn’t going away anytime soon, so best to just enjoy the ride, yo. toodles.
LikeLike
not that propaganda is all wrong, necessarily:
LikeLike
i’m bored today, i guess, but look at the quote from JSS right above the one I linked to:
even as I had lunch with my pastor yesterday, discussing fesko among other things, i always come back to animus imponentis.
the more things change, the more, they stay the same.
rick warren? didn’t he host at his church the presidential debates in 2008? i’ve nothing to add, only to learn. carry on, friends. peace.
LikeLike
Let me add (since I am on record), in conclusion, Jason J Stellman’s suggestion of revising our constitution seems way out of step of reformed orthodoxy. He’s entitled to his opinion, but mine could not be more opposite of him, in this regard. No matter his taste for bowties. Toodle-oo.
LikeLike
If R-War were to enter the international political theater during the 1940s:
Warren, whose Purpose Driven Life and Purpose Driven Church books have sold millions of copies around the world, recorded a video interview for the League of Nations News Service in which he said: “We have far more in common than what divides us.”
He continued: “When you talk about Americans, Canadians, English, Germans, French, Soviets, Japanese… Well they would all say we believe in freedom, we believe in the Nation State, we believe in the people. These are the big issues.
“Sometimes Americans think that English worship royalty like it’s another god. But that’s not exactly British policy.”
He also referred to the English practice of singing “God save the queen”, which Americans reject, saying: “When you understand what they mean by what they’re saying, there’s a whole lot more commonality.
“Now there’s still real differences, no doubt about that. But the most important thing is if you love Freedom, we’re on the same team.”
LikeLike
Hi John,
You said, “From what I can tell from reading these stories is that they never really believed the true biblical and Protestant Gospel.”
If you are going to start from the supposition that the gospel was lost and recovered(as you have done by referring to it as the “Protestant’ gospel) by men at a late date,then of course we who have left Protestantism will be viewed to have either not believed it, or rejected it.
It isn’t good enough to say that the gospel as Reformers understood it was there hidden all along, if the record doesn’t show that this was so. If it existed as the Reformers define it, then why wasn’t it publicly taught? That there was a hidden gospel is a very gnostic idea.
Further, why isn’t there record of an uproar, or even a little questioning, in ecclesial history as early Christianity morphed into what Protestant’s think is a church,that not only lost the gospel, but added altars, purgatory, indulgences, praying to saints, etc.?
“Maybe that is because not many Protestant churches are teaching the Gospel very comprehensively.”
John, as long as there is a gospel that precedes the Protestant notion, then there is an option on the table, so if Protestant’s are leaving Protestant communities it’s because it is possible that the Reformed version isn’t what the gospel is.
Here is a conversion story that might interest you, and dispel the idea that Protestant’s convert because they didn’t understand, or because they like smells and bells.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/joshua-lims-story-a-westminary-seminary-california-student-becomes-catholic/
LikeLike
susan, i was worried, you never told me how the fam is. here’s us.
u guys good? has frodo broken free from the wood elves’ lair yet (did i just spoil it?(darn!!))
peace
LikeLike
John, this is what the CCC says:III. THE NEW LAW OR THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL
1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: “I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”19
1966 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it:
If anyone should meditate with devotion and perspicacity on the sermon our Lord gave on the mount, as we read in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, he will doubtless find there . . . the perfect way of the Christian life. . . . This sermon contains . . . all the precepts needed to shape one’s life.20
1967 The Law of the Gospel “fulfills,” refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21 In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfills the divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the “kingdom of heaven.” It is addressed to those open to accepting this new hope with faith – the poor, the humble, the afflicted, the pure of heart, those persecuted on account of Christ and so marks out the surprising ways of the Kingdom.
1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23
1969 The New Law practices the acts of religion: almsgiving, prayer and fasting, directing them to the “Father who sees in secret,” in contrast with the desire to “be seen by men.”24 Its prayer is the Our Father.25
1970 The Law of the Gospel requires us to make the decisive choice between “the two ways” and to put into practice the words of the Lord.26 It is summed up in the Golden Rule, “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; this is the law and the prophets.”27
The entire Law of the Gospel is contained in the “new commandment” of Jesus, to love one another as he has loved us.28
1971 To the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount it is fitting to add the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc. This doctrine hands on the Lord’s teaching with the authority of the apostles, particularly in the presentation of the virtues that flow from faith in Christ and are animated by charity, the principal gift of the Holy Spirit. “Let charity be genuine. . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality.”29 This catechesis also teaches us to deal with cases of conscience in the light of our relationship to Christ and to the Church.30
1972 The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who “does not know what his master is doing” to that of a friend of Christ – “For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” – or even to the status of son and heir.31
1973 Besides its precepts, the New Law also includes the evangelical counsels. The traditional distinction between God’s commandments and the evangelical counsels is drawn in relation to charity, the perfection of Christian life. The precepts are intended to remove whatever is incompatible with charity. The aim of the counsels is to remove whatever might hinder the development of charity, even if it is not contrary to it.32
1974 The evangelical counsels manifest the living fullness of charity, which is never satisfied with not giving more. They attest its vitality and call forth our spiritual readiness. The perfection of the New Law consists essentially in the precepts of love of God and neighbor. The counsels point out the more direct ways, the readier means, and are to be practiced in keeping with the vocation of each:
[God] does not want each person to keep all the counsels, but only those appropriate to the diversity of persons, times, opportunities, and strengths, as charity requires; for it is charity, as queen of all virtues, all commandments, all counsels, and, in short, of all laws and all Christian actions that gives to all of them their rank, order, time, and value.33
LikeLike
susan, i asked about YOU, not about your church, silly.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Robert, not to give cover to error, but that seems a bit dismissive. Some of us know what it’s like to have our (Reformed) faith reduced to mere psychological need. Sure, it’s a factor to some extent, but is it not sufficient to keeps things more theological than psychological?
I don’t mean to be dismissive. I wouldn’t say her story shows mere psychological need. But a good word nonetheless.
The difficulty is that most of the RCs who come here and talk about our lack of certainty of faith. It seems hard to imagine that their drive for a particular kind of certainty is not what draws them to Rome. Is that not evidence of a conversion that is more psychologically motivated than theologically motivated.
LikeLike
Susan, seriously? Did you pull those arguments out of your Great Big Golden Book of Protestant Cliches?
Your example of one (one!?!) frustrated academic is hardly a coup. Instead, I would suggest that Mr. Lim falls steadily in the “didn’t understand” category. He presents a caricature of both Protestantism and the Roman church. It is honestly one of the most naive, short-sighted, and utterly tone-deaf assessments of the tradition from which he left and the tradition he now follows.
For someone now confessing a “historical” church, Lim sure doesn’t do much history. “[D]espite the passage of over two millennia, the Church continues to hold and to teach in substance what it has always held and taught.” This is a metahistory. As a wise bespectacled man (not Francis) once said: It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
And what gives with this patronizing, “oh, you!” loftiness that Lim uses in reference to the poor unwashed masses of Catholicism? “Though I was initially turned off by the fact that most Catholics don’t know as much as I would like them to (ultimately, due to my own pride), yet I am constantly humbled by the devotion of seemingly simple Catholics whose love for the Lord and faith in his presence in the Eucharist manifest true child-like faith.”
So, when Roman Catholics aren’t well versed in the tenants of their faith, they’re quaint and the bearers of a simple, beautiful faith. But when Protestants (Especially Confessionals, who particularly seem to be in Lim’s sights) are unlearned or untrained in their denomination’s theology, they’re ignorant, mislead, or hypocritical.
Where do these CTC guys come from? In this particular case, it seems like Lim was looking for a denomination that would more efficiently allow him to be arrogant. Called To Communionism gave him that opportunity.
LikeLike
Robert, maybe. But as I read these CtC testimonials (overlap alert), I see plenty of theological targets. Call me soft, but taking aim at the psychological ones of her members seems as cheap as going after the sex scandals of her leadership.
LikeLike
Zrim, that is unless the sex scandals of her leadership are tied to theological commitments about marriage, or clerical abstention-form of godliness.
LikeLike
Susan, right, Josh Lim only proves he doesn’t understand contemporary Roman Catholicism — not like you do either.
LikeLike
Susan, what does the Baltimore Catechism say? What about Trent’s?
LikeLike
“Susan, seriously? Did you pull those arguments out of your Great Big Golden Book of Protestant Cliches?”
Susan & The Callers need some fresh meat. The Lim & Stellman pelts are getting stale.
LikeLike
Warren said,
“When you talk about Pentecostals, charismatics, evangelicals, fundamentalists, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians … Well they would all say we believe in the trinity, we believe in the Bible, we believe in the resurrection, we believe salvation is through Jesus Christ.”
But this phrase is precisely where the two traditions (Protestant and Roman Catholic) part ways. The Roman Catholic Church defines justification as “making one righteous” (based on the Latin term ‘justificare’) while Protestants define justification as “declaring one righteous” (based on the Greek word, ‘dikaiosune’). It is sad and frustrating to see someone with as high a profile as Rick Warren not get this basic theological point.
LikeLike
My response should include the word “last”, thus reading,
“This last phrase is precisely where the two traditions…”
LikeLike
If Rick already
compromisedfound common ground with the world in his Purpose DrivenChrist lessLife, why wouldn’t he eventually try to find common ground with the world’s worldly version of Christianity? Stands to sinful reason in my book.Called to Carnal Christianity? That’s a cat of a different color. Bry’s got higher standards than your average evangelical or so he would wish to claim. While it’s bad enough he is a philosopher, he’s not quite a Jesuit philosopher. Yet.
Jase? As long as Rick’s buyin, he’s down with that.
LikeLike
A.B.
Adorable kiddos, Andrew. For some reason though I thought you were blonde and younger.
LikeLike
susan, you are too kind.
posting only to make sure my son gets his recognition around here as well.
do take care, and from the buckinghams of northern calfiornia, happy holidays to the vaders.
best regards,
andrew
LikeLike
Sean, sure. What I have in mind are the human foibles to which everyone is vulnerable regardless of theological commitments. Prots have sex scandals (and psychological needs). RC authoritarianism that fumbles the human foible becomes the target though.
LikeLike
David, at the risk of being a broken record, that list of traditions betrays more than two traditions, because within it are quasi-Protestants who have a foot in the radical Reformation and are as confused about justification as Rome. Decisionists who practice altar calls, seek the still small voice and are continuationists are not Protestant.
LikeLike
Susan says: “If you are going to start from the supposition that the gospel was lost and recovered(as you have done by referring to it as the “Protestant’ gospel) by men at a late date,then of course we who have left Protestantism will be viewed to have either not believed it, or rejected it.
John Y: I started with the supposition of the biblical gospel- the one Paul talked about most comprehensively in the books of Romans, Galatians and Hebrews. Luther and Calvin sought to recover this biblical gospel that got misinterpreted and lost after the original apostles died off. They both spent lots of time in the Scriptures and reading all the Patristic Fathers, Augustine and the other major medieval theologians too (including Aquinas). So, you were not really hearing what I was saying. Luther, Calvin and the major reformers of the reformation were all deeply versed in the scriptural texts probing into what the Gospel is and then comparing it to what major theologians from the history of the church were saying about it. That is what they were all about. The conclusion they came to is that the Scriptures were being misinterpreted by almost all of the medieval church. They were quite adamant about reading original sources of all the medieval theologians too.
The passages you quoted about the new law and the law of the gospel do not address the major issues of the ordo salutis and the history of redemption either. You have to start with how Paul talked about these issues in his New Testament writings and then how major biblical theologians interpreted what Paul said. It is possible to come to clarity on those issues without an infallible magisterium doing the thinking for you. However, I think the paradigm you are persuaded is true prevents you from hearing how the Protestant reformers, and Paul for that matter, talked about the Gospel. You do at least admit that there are major and critical differences in the Catholic Gospel and the Protestant Gospel. One is more biblical than the other. The argument is a difficult, long and drawn out one but you have to believe that God can communicate His redemptive plan to those whom He died for. The Catholic magisterium has consistently objected to the biblical conclusions that the reformers came to about the Gospel. And then they added their twist on where they derive their authority from. I am assuming you know all this but your comment suggests that you really don’t. The argument has always been who is really believing the true Gospel and not a false one and then how do you go about determining that. It does not seem like the Catholics who frequent here are really trying to understand the differences. In other words, we keep talking past each other without centering in on the real critical differences.
LikeLike
John,
I don’t think we are talking past each other. I understand perfectly what the Reformers thought the gospel boiled down to, but they were wrong. I don’t deny the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, I deny that the Reformers understood what the tradition had always said and understood was the pure, Christian and yes, biblical, gospel of God.
You read those letters of Paul and you think they are in accord with Luther. I read the letters of Paul and I take into consideration, 1) That there was a long history of biblical interpretation that preceded Luther and it existed inside of one ecclesial community. 2) That men err, including Luther, so it isn’t safe to go outside the ecclesial community since there is supposed to only be one church. In other words, there is supposed to be a way to know what is Christian fullness, and there is supposed to be only one mystical body with one head, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Yeah, I know that you guys say that there is supposed to be an invisible church made up of those who believe the Protstant gospel, but that notion of invisibility alone makes the marks of one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, incomprehensible. Only a visible church can have sheep and goats within it, so if the church only exists as an invisible body then there isn’t any reason to talk about goats. Only in the context of one visible and united body does the sheep/goat parable make any sense. If people are goats then they’re goats and there would be no reason to speak of them as being among the company of the sheep( inside The Church),
If you say that all the different denominations can and do have people who “never believed the gospel” and so will be considered goats on the last day, I say no, that doesn’t work because you are still presupposing, and trusting, that Luther is correct about a deceived and deceiving church prior to him, and you’re trusting that the gospel as he defines it is all that one needs to reach heaven. That’s circular reasoning, and it denies a long church history where Luther’s theological novum was never taught. The only way off the merry-go-round- is to stop operating inside a framework that was devised by the Reformers and is essentially churchless.
Please give this a listen.
Best,
Susan
LikeLike
Click here
LikeLike
The reason I keep posting is because I don’t believe in purgatory, and more than two sends me to CtC moderated comments, something even (S)usan loathes:
Otherwise, I could sweep this all up in one monster combox post. Alas..
LikeLike
Susan,
1) That there was a long history of biblical interpretation that preceded Luther and it existed inside of one ecclesial community.
This isn’t true at all. Not in the slightest. There were many ecclesial communities all with a history of biblical interpretation and they didn’t agree on every point. For crying out loud, there was at least Constantinople and Rome. Plus the Antiochene Orthodox. Plus the Waldensians. and so on and so forth.
LikeLike
Andrew my friend, you didn’t read my comment nor did you listen to the lecture.
Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.
Sorry, but this Q and A format is circular, and worked to fit a new ecclesiology. Okay, maybe the question should have been, “Are all saved who are inside the visible church?” Then the answer would be no, not all who are in the visible church are destined for heaven, but only those who love God and do his will.
Q. 62. What is the visible church?
A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children.
That’s really unhelpful. How do you spot the visible church with the naked eye. Without using presuppositional apologetics( and circular reasoning), what are the tenets of the true religion? And, I don’t want to be sent back to one of the Reformed or Presbyterian “visible” churches that may or may not teach doctrines to keep a fellow within the invisible church.
The united church of earler ages is now triumphantly in heaven, and of course it’s in members professed and practices the true religion, but that doesn’t help us down here, if there is no visible holy, catholic and “necessarily” *apostolic* church. Think about it. Without a visible church there is no such thing as a schismatic. A person can only ever be outside a visible church, but never outside an invisible church.
LikeLike
Seriously?!
Stephanie needs to read Peter Kreeft. And Bryan Corss is a cartoon character. No one reads him except for Reformed types looking for laughs. He makes Merry del Val look liberal. Please.
LikeLike
I don’t think we are talking past each other. I understand perfectly what the Reformers thought the gospel boiled down to, but they were wrong. I don’t deny the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, I deny that the Reformers understood what the tradition had always said and understood was the pure, Christian and yes, biblical, gospel of God.
Don’t be daffy, Susan. Trent called us goats and Vat. 2 called us separated sheep.
And you know what your little papa says. “Who am I to judge?”
IOW you and Called to Confusion are out to lunch and maybe Jase isn’t the only one who would benefit from a
lastCall to a Roman Catholic Sobriety Society. Kind of like the KoC but unisex.cheers
LikeLike
Joe, Stephanie is both earnest and an ex-reformed convert to Romanism. That’s all that is needed for the gushing to begin in the combox. Blech.
LikeLike
Susan, please keep going on whatever you think it is your are accomplishing with every post. The propaganda machine looks better when there’s willing antagonists. Peace.
LikeLike
How do you spot the visible church with the naked eye
But that’s just it. When it comes to walking by sight instead of faith, Rome has no peer or equal.
If you can’t see, smell, taste, hear or feel it, it’s not really the church in mistaking the carnal and sensual for the spiritual. Jesus becomes a mere piece of bread and mice can actually eat the creator of the universe. Grace is literally dispensed through the spigot of the sacraments. The church must be visible with much pomp and circumstance or it is no true church and so on and so forth.
The hubris is amazing. If the romanist convert is not so confused by the hall of mirrors and wholesale equivocation of their mother that they don’t need a blindfold, they’re still so full of themselves they feel free to patronize us with free optometry exams and lecture us on what they know not.
As in for one, Luther indicated how helpful his teachers were to his discovery of justification by faith alone. It’s not like there weren’t multiple gospels floating around in Rome, until Trent decisively cast in with justification by infusion of righteousness and condemned faith alone.
LikeLike
Bob,
Christians believe in the incarnation and that the stuff of earth are truly vehicles for grace. Why do you go for the reduced ecclesiology? What tradition prior to the Reformation supports your soteriology and ecclesiology?
LikeLike
Every time i hear about former “reformed” person, they demonstrate zero grasp of the fundamentals of a Reformed faith
They: “ummmm yeah, I used to be a big Yankees fan..
Me: “Oh…. who was your favourite player for the Yankees?”
They: “Ummmmmm…. Yaz???”
Me: “Wow, you must have been a real involved yankees fan there…”
LikeLike
Christians believe in the incarnation and that the stuff of earth are truly vehicles for grace. Why do you go for the
reducedRoman ecclesiology? What tradition prior tothe ReformationTrent supports your soteriology and ecclesiology?Susan, I know you have been diligently indoctrinated into the fact that the early church was the Roman church, but it ain’t necessarily so. And there were a lot of people talking about antiChrist in the church before Trent put a lock on the title for the Reformers by anathematizing justification by faith alone as taught in the Scripture alone.
LikeLike
Christians believe in the incarnation and that the stuff of earth are truly vehicles for grace. Why do you go for the
reducedRoman ecclesiology? What tradition prior tothe ReformationTrent supports your soteriology and ecclesiology?Susan, I know you have been diligently indoctrinated into the fact that the early church was the Roman church, but it ain’t necessarily so. And there were a lot of people talking about antiChrist in the church before Trent put a lock on the title for the Reformers by anathematizing justification by faith alone as taught in the Scripture alone.
LikeLike
Susan, I think you need to speak with Pastor Warren and maybe learn to build a bridge like he does and perhaps employing an Ignatian framework will help you figger all this out.
LikeLike
Kent,
Every time i hear about former “reformed” person, they demonstrate zero grasp of the fundamentals of a Reformed faith
I always find these kinds of comments silly and arrogant. Isn’t it true that, given the “fundamentals” of your faith, a man could have a perfect understanding of the Reformed gospel and still be reprobate? If so, whats with all of the “none of you understand Reformed theology” nonsense? I was never Reformed, but I could easily write an essay on the “gospel” according to reformed protestantism and get an A. No problem. So could Jason Stellman (who graduated a reformed seminary). So could Robert Sungenis (who graduated a Reformed seminary). SO could Scott Hahn (who taught in a Reformed Seminary). Tons of people have understood your theology and converted. Tons of people understand your theology and reject it. Get over yourself.
LikeLike
“Tons of people have understood your theology and converted. Tons of people understand your theology and reject it.”
Is “tons” the proper measure of RC’s? Maybe it should be their “mass.”
Ken I’ll give you credit for maintaining your swagger. There, that’s enough ecumenism for one day.
LikeLike
Susan, what was the position of the church on justification in 1215? What Iranaeus said? Origen? Athanasius? What council or pope defined justification before Trent? And why did it take Protestantism for you to “know” what the church has “always” taught on “the gospel” “?”
LikeLike
Mebbe, mud. If he truly exists (I’m only sure of 2 or so out here in webernetic cyberspace) , he sure can be fiesty. Helps our propo, anyway..
LikeLike
loser ken, your recent exchange with Jeff indicated a less than A-grade understanding of justification.
Talk about silly and arrogant.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
I was about your age when I read Fromm. You’d win points (fwiw) from me if you cut the psychoanalysis of reformed as little man (wiki has us around 75 million or so, and growing). Psyche stuff like Fromm is cool, but doesn’t he know (he’s dead, of course) he stands condemned under the same indictments (he’s human too, right?) he uses when he evaluates humanity?
Or disregard and count me one of the little men syndrome reformed types. Since I can’t verify your existence, what’s my motivation here, yo?
LikeLike
I forgot Fromm’s whole thing on prot history until rereading the wiki now:
Anyway, off topic, sorry. Ken, your most interesting quality is your agreement with us about the problems of Vat2. Oh well.. I get yours and Susan’s reason for being here. Go ahead, defend your church. I’ve been there, done that. Got the tee shirt..
LikeLike
Kenneth, it’s fair enough to say the Reformed gospel is understood but rejected. But that places the denier outside the visible church, where there is ordinarily no possibility of salvation. To understand and reject the Roman gospel simply separates the denier from accessing grace in this life. There’s more to lose in (understanding but) rejecting the Reformed gospel because there’s a higher view of the visible church. More irony.
LikeLike
Muddy,
Lol thanks.
Dr. Hart,
Crap, I forgot to get back with Jeff on that thread. That was one of my favorite convos on this site. Anyways, you will notice in said conversation I dont actually misrepresent reformed theology. I simply disagree and present an alternative view. (which is more or less identical with Augustines btw)
LikeLike
Zrim,
Based off of what you said our positions seem nearly identical. The Church teaches that if one is not invincibly ignorant it is a mortal sin to reject the Church.
LikeLike
“The Church teaches that if one is not invincibly ignorant it is a mortal sin to reject the Church.”
But does your POPE (you know, the one you have right now – not the one you wish you had) agree with this? And if he agrees with this why does everything that comes out of his mouth seem to to contradict this? And if he doesn’t agree with this, wither infallibility?
LikeLike
*whither*
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The Church teaches that if one is not invincibly ignorant it is a mortal sin to reject the Church.
The problem, of course, is identifying who the “invincibly ignorant” are. Francis seems to think they’re everyone. Popes before V2, not so much.
Maybe everyone who has ever rejected the RCC just had it poorly explained to them by a RC. That makes everyone invincibly ignorant.
Invincible ignorance is a convenient way to bow to the zeitgeist of the age and yet still maintain some kind of final importance and authority for Rome. The claim on the surface might be similar, but at the end of the day your claim refutes itself and Rome’s purpose. Whatever you do, don’t try and explain Rome to anyone. You might provide some good person who is otherwise going to be saved the knowledge that will damn them. Don’t engage in apologetics—you might be making all of us here worthy of hell. Isn’t Rome supposed to be all about agape? That’s what CTC says. Leave us be in our invincible ignorance. Your making us culpable, possibly. Without you we’d all go to heaven. We’re separated brethren after all.
Those who believe there is no salvation outside of conscious faith in Christ, don’t have that problem. Our evangelism and apologetics are the most loving thing that human beings can do. Rome’s isn’t. Its the most evil, misanthropic thing the church can do. Don’t be a hater. Leave the ignorant who are responding to God’s grace in their system alone. Those kindhearted Muslims don’t need the church. That atheist who sits on the board of local soup kitchen is fine. The Dalai Lama, he’s golden.
Rome’s universalism makes it existence a grave, grave evil. Oh the irony.
LikeLike
“you’re making”
LikeLike
Here Kenny, Kenny, Kenny, Kenny, Kenny – Tons of people understand your theology and reject it. Get over yourself.
Erik – Tons of people want to work their way to heaven. That’s why they’re Catholics.
LikeLike
Must be nice to be 27 and to be an expert on Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Reformed theology, and Catholicism.
Kenneth is giving Rabbi Bret a run for his money for the Endowed Old Life Chair in Neocalvinist Supermanism.
LikeLike
Zrim wrote way back there…
“David, at the risk of being a broken record, that list of traditions betrays more than two traditions, because within it are quasi-Protestants who have a foot in the radical Reformation and are as confused about justification as Rome. Decisionists who practice altar calls, seek the still small voice and are continuationists are not Protestant.”
You’ll get no argument from me on this point. I was only summarizing what DGH wrote in his first paragraph and what Warren sees himself as – a spokesman for evangelicals. Again, it is pretty sad that a man with his standing in the evangelical world is so ill-informed. As an aside, I once read a letter he sent to the editor of Modern Reformation thanking them for the good work they do. So, he has some awareness of confessional Protestantism but apparently lacks understanding. Sigh…
LikeLike
Kensatucky – Based off of what you said our positions seem nearly identical. The Church teaches that if one is not invincibly ignorant it is a mortal sin to reject the Church.
Erik – Where do invincibly ignorant Roman Catholics stand?
How convenient for men in power to say that those who do not acquiesce to them are guilty of mortal sin.
Ka-ching. $$$
LikeLike
E: Must be nice to be 27 and to be an expert on Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Reformed theology, and Catholicism.
I call BS in 10 foot high letters.
LikeLike
Ken:I always find these kinds of comments silly and arrogant. Isn’t it true that, given the “fundamentals” of your faith, a man could have a perfect understanding of the Reformed gospel and still be reprobate?
Totally besides the point, proving my point completely.
The silly and arrogant (and really clueless) one is you.
Hoisted on your own petard once again.
Don’t you honestly have anything better to do with your life than waste it jerking us around?
LikeLike
Susan says: “I don’t think we are talking past each other. I understand perfectly what the Reformers thought the gospel boiled down to, but they were wrong. I don’t deny the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, I deny that the Reformers understood what the tradition had always said and understood was the pure, Christian and yes, biblical, gospel of God.”
John Y: What did the Reformers think the gospel boiled down to? I want the answer that you would give off the top of your head and I want to know why you think they were wrong. If you think I am getting the gospel wrong and that my beliefs will lead me into harm then I appreciate you trying to correct me. That is my sole motivation for why I continue to make the gospel, and what it really is, the most important issue I have to face in life. I don’t adhere to your high view of the church nor do I agree with everyone at oldlife. I agree with the church that is consistently and accurately proclaiming and teaching the gospel week in and week out. I don’t think the Catholic church is doing that. I look to the finished work of Christ as my only hope. What happens inside of me is a result of what Christ did outside of me and has nothing to do with how I get justified before God. Until that issue is resolved, faith in what God does inside me is just another form of idolatry. The righteousness of God is found in the redemptive work of Christ and those who God gives faith to believe it. God is both sovereign and just. And God’s justice is not man’s justice. Election, definitive atonement and the imputation of the work of Christ, ie,. the legal and forensic union with Christ, is where Catholics and Protestants collide and separate.
LikeLike
Kenneth, but “separated brethren” sounds pretty venial-ish.
LikeLike
Dave, true enough. At the same time, if eeeevamgelicalism really is the stew Riddlebarger describes it as (everything from Sproul to Hinn), isn’t this all in keeping? In which case, the affection may not be so much sad as it is ho-hum.
LikeLike
To quote someone far more wiser than myself:
At this point, if I had been reading this when I was a proud lost Calvinist, I would have asked: do you mean “the covenant of grace”, and are you a “covenant theologian?”. I was easily distracted by many many things, and only the grace of God undistracted me so I attended to the important questions and stopped chasing all the others. I don’t care what you call it (God’s law, God’s covenant of redemption, the suretyship, whatever), but I know that the only true peace and joy found in this world is to be found by resting in what Christ did and not in my resting, not in my abiding..
The issue is not if Luther is wrong. The issue is that Christ did something for the elect and that this something that Christ did is itself (without anything added) all that is needed to guarantee and entitle the elect to every spiritual blessing in Christ. The blessings of faith, of commitment, of works, of perseverance are all results of that obedience of Christ, by which he made an end of the law for the elect FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
LikeLike
loser ken, Jeff (and I) don’t think you presented Reformed theology accurately. You disagree with it — duh.
LikeLike
Robert and loser Ken, all Protestants have read Matt 16 and 18. How can they be invincibly ignorant unless you think those texts about the keys of the kingdom are obscure?
LikeLike
Chortles,
But does your POPE (you know, the one you have right now – not the one you wish you had) agree with this? And if he agrees with this why does everything that comes out of his mouth seem to to contradict this? And if he doesn’t agree with this, wither infallibility?
Whether or not any given Pope “agrees” with what the Church teaches is irrelevant. Whether or not any given Pope *likes* what the Church teaches is irrelevant. The fact that you think your question *is* relevant just underlines and highlights your misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and the magesterium in general. You do realize that there have been Popes that have been declared heretics? You do realize that Pope Liberius wrongly excommunicated Athanasius in the midst of his defense of orthodox christian teaching? The fathers of Vatican 1 were aware of this historical data as well and their definition of papal infallibility was carefully presented to be able to account for these types of situations. The teachings of the Church do not change with the whims of each and every Pope.
Question: Do you really not know this after all these years of prot/cath dialog? Or are you just playing the troll? I honestly do not know the answer at this point
LikeLike
kenneth, you on twitter? you totally belong, yo. that’s me NOT being a troll, and just giving you a high five (but not for any of your comments here, to be clear..)
LikeLike
Robert,
he problem, of course, is identifying who the “invincibly ignorant” are.
That is only a problem is we are given the task of identifying such people. We are not. We are to preach the good news to everyone and let the HS handle the rest. Is it a problem for you to have to “identify” the names and social security numbers of the elect? Obviously not. Why then should we be able to “identify” the invincible ignorant? Only God can judge such a thing.
Invincible ignorance is a convenient way to bow to the zeitgeist of the age and yet still maintain some kind of final importance and authority for Rome. The claim on the surface might be similar, but at the end of the day your claim refutes itself and Rome’s purpose.
“at the end of the day” I disagree. Unfortunately, you haven’t provided any argument to refute. So i will just trade assertion for assertion. Ready? No it doesn’t. See how easy that is? Keep attending your logic lessons with Bryan….. you will get there one day.
Whatever you do, don’t try and explain Rome to anyone. You might provide some good person who is otherwise going to be saved the knowledge that will damn them. Don’t engage in apologetics—you might be making all of us here worthy of hell. Isn’t Rome supposed to be all about agape? That’s what CTC says. Leave us be in our invincible ignorance. Your making us culpable, possibly. Without you we’d all go to heaven. We’re separated brethren after all.
Only God can judge who is and is not invincible ignorant. If we truly love you, we must assume that you are culpable for your position and attempt to persuade you to reconsider. The rest is up to the H.S.
Those who believe there is no salvation outside of conscious faith in Christ, don’t have that problem. Our evangelism and apologetics are the most loving thing that human beings can do. Rome’s isn’t. Its the most evil, misanthropic thing the church can do. Don’t be a hater. Leave the ignorant who are responding to God’s grace in their system alone. Those kindhearted Muslims don’t need the church. That atheist who sits on the board of local soup kitchen is fine. The Dalai Lama, he’s golden.
This entire paragraph presupposes that all of the above people are not only invincibly ignorant of their sin of schism but also invincibly ignorant of every other mortal sin they have ever committed. It also presupposes that all of the above people have an implicit desire to be baptized (if they havent been). This is an assumption that we can not make if we love them. We do not know that they are fine and so must offer them the truth of the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
Erik,
Must be nice to be 27 and to be an expert on Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Reformed theology, and Catholicism.
I feel obligated to give you your logic lesson on Bryans absence.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
LikeLike
Kent,
Don’t you honestly have anything better to do with your life than waste it jerking us around?
Lets see… Married, father of three young boys, full-time student, full-time employed…. yup, plenty of stuff to do. But I like you guys. Don’t you like me too? (puppy eyes with strings playing in the background)
LikeLike
DG,
Robert and loser Ken, all Protestants have read Matt 16 and 18. How can they be invincibly ignorant unless you think those texts about the keys of the kingdom are obscure?
Exactly why we must assume they are not invincibly ignorant (out of love)
LikeLike
Ken – I don’t play the troll, I am the bleeding troll.
“But does your POPE (you know, the one you have right now – not the one you wish you had) agree with this?”
Here’s Ken’s answer to my question :
(end)
LikeLike
Ken, you boys can play the “it’s the papacy, not the pope game” forever. Convenient. You’re selling theoretical ecclesial sky pie. $10 a slice with a plenary indulgence if you follow @Pontifex on Twitter. What a deal.
LikeLike
loser ken, then why evangelize? Why not keep them in their ignorance? They have a better shot at heaven if they don’t know than if they know and reject.
LikeLike
DG,
See my response to Robert.
Chortles,
Ken, you boys can play the “it’s the papacy, not the pope game” forever. Convenient. You’re selling theoretical ecclesial sky pie.
It is “convenient” only because your critique is missing the mark. It’s not as if we are making this up as we go. We have had the official definition of papal infallibility for quite some time now….. The target is firmly set…. the problem is you arent even aiming at it. You are arguing against *what your imagination* says papal infallibility should be. Which is, of course, why I wrote this piece.
http://www.coffeehouseinquisition.com/battling-imagination-skeptics/
for people just like you robert and daryl
LikeLike
Again:
“But does your POPE (you know, the one you have right now – not the one you wish you had) agree with this?”
Here’s Ken’s answer to my question :
(end)
LikeLike
More newbie prot turned RC trad lay charism debating with multi-generational priestly charism. That deposit is ginormous. Nothing like drawing round circles on a chalkboard. ‘Yes, I know it has no relation to practice or observation but damn it’s round.’
LikeLike
“Those who believe there is no salvation outside of conscious faith in Christ, don’t have that problem.”
So much for salvation of infants, fetuses, and mentally disabled.
“Must be nice to be 27 and to be an expert on Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Reformed theology, and Catholicism.”
Calvin published the Institutes 1st ed when he was 27. Must have been nice for him to write like he was an expert on Catholicism and Protestantism.
LikeLike
WCF 10.3: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”
LikeLike
chortles,
the answer to your question is “yes, Pope Francis does believe in the existence of mortal sin and the heresy of schism”. Happy?
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’m aware of WCF’s teaching – I was applying Robert’s standard he was using to launch his attack on invincible ignorance.
“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases”
Robert defined “how He pleases” as conscious faith. Do you hold that elect fetuses, infants, and the mentally disabled/incapacitated have conscious faith?
LikeLike
While painting a bedroom last evening I was listening to the White Horse Inn. They bonus track was a 2011 interview that Mike Horton did of Christian Smith, sociologist at Notre Dame who converted to Roman Catholicism. The title is “Should We Reform or Abandon American Protestantism?” It is a cordial conversation that ends up with a fairly long discussion about justification and whether or not the anathemas of Trent are still operative:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/whiarchives/2011whi1073oct30.mp3|titles=WHI
LikeLike
CvD, I hold what the WCF confesses. How God saves the ordinarily unable elect is a mystery that I have no interest in speculating on.
LikeLike
Ken, is remaining Protestant even after having been exposed to so great an apologist as yourself a mortal sin? Asking for a friend.
LikeLike
qed
LikeLike
Chortles,
Only God is the judge of mans culpability. Tell your friend he will get perfect justice. No one gets a bum deal at judgement. All of the condemned will be without excuse.
LikeLike
Actually, forgot four: “‘Yes, I know it has no relation to practice or observation or scripture or the pope or the pastoral application of Vat II, but damn it’s round.’
LikeLike
Ken, I’ll take mercy instead of justice if that’s OK. Does Rome have any good news for me? Something besides a program, a process, an institution, a hippie pope? Assurance of anything other than that purgatory is a real bitch?
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Only God can judge who is and is not invincible ignorant. If we truly love you, we must assume that you are culpable for your position and attempt to persuade you to reconsider. The rest is up to the H.S.
Funny, I’ve had other RCs tell me exactly the opposite. Basically, that you assume all people are going to heaven and that the only ones you should worry about are Roman Catholics who leave the church. Now I look at you, and I look at Francis. Francis isn’t calling me to communion. He’s out speaking platitudes about how the real problem in the world today is youth unemployment, and he’s hosting Muslim prayers in the Vatican. Sounds to me like he’s more on the other side than you. Which means, if the pope is the guy I should care about, that I’m golden and you are not loving me by trying to convince me of the truth of Romanism.
This entire paragraph presupposes that all of the above people are not only invincibly ignorant of their sin of schism but also invincibly ignorant of every other mortal sin they have ever committed. It also presupposes that all of the above people have an implicit desire to be baptized (if they havent been). This is an assumption that we can not make if we love them. We do not know that they are fine and so must offer them the truth of the Catholic Church.
Can you explain to me how allowing a Trinity-hating Muslim to pray in the Vatican is not an implicit nod of approval to that Muslim? At best the current pope considers him invincibly ignorant. At worst the current pope is full-on universalist. Either way, you’re unloving. You’re sending people to hell who are otherwise doing just fine. (Not to mention that fact that it’s impossible for any non-Christian to have any kind of concept of mortal/venial sin since it’s a concept born in the Christian tradition. And I’m being generous in including that erroneous belief as a Christian one.)
LikeLike
‘Cause, Ken, Francis has good news:
“It’s awwwwlllllllllllllllllllllll good…who am I to judge?”
Get on the Frank train.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert and loser Ken, all Protestants have read Matt 16 and 18. How can they be invincibly ignorant unless you think those texts about the keys of the kingdom are obscure?
I’ve known RCs to get around that. Given Rome’s view of human reason and human nature, I don’t see how they could call me anything other than invincibly ignorant if I really put a good faith effort into seeing the text from Rome’s perspective but just can’t do it no matter how hard I try.
V2 made the so-called “Call to Communion” pointless. But the only person among Jason and the Callers who seems to get that is Jason (and it’s taken him a couple of years).
LikeLike
“Please, Mary, don’t give us a wacked out hippie pope who will embarrass all us trads and recent converts!”
Not all prayers are answered as you would wish. Must have missed a bead.
LikeLike
“must’ve missed a bead”. Sacrilege. Ten hail marys and ten our fathers por tu
LikeLike
Sean, maybe the lefty Jezzies and butch social worker nuns prayed harder and got just what they wanted.
LikeLike
CW, I think that’s how it went down. If we judge just on numbers and papal audacity(Francis is the pope after all) the trads prayers never go past the veils and roo caps.
LikeLike
Was poking around creed code, Robert. Got through 1/3 or so of that to Mikel yesterday (insert napoleon dyno ref).
Contraception appears 40+ times
The more things change…
Anyway, well done bro. Lates.
LikeLike
Oh, and Kenny:
Of course we like you. Why else would Darryl and Robert spill so much valuable electronic ink for years? We care for Jason and those he has negatively influenced.
Bye.
LikeLike
lame fox, now Calvin is your model?
LikeLike
loser ken, do you have the password for Papalanswers.com?
LikeLike
You know, at least an actual apostle, Paul, bothered to ground the Xian religion in a historic reality-the resurrection and then told us if the resurrection wasn’t, in fact, an historic reality, don’t bother but live like like a hedonist cuz you ain’t got a prayer. But you Trad RC’s forego scripture, and forego ACTUAL apostolic testimony for a medieval institution that doesn’t even make the claims it once made but you guys want to bet your soul on a principle(not historic truth), a theoretical possibility, that it could if it wanted to, which it has flatly said, and then underwent nothing short of a revolution in ’65 to prove, it doesn’t want to do. Your own communion rejects your religious practice. It’s hard to know what to say to that. Gullible isn’t strong enough. And you aren’t stupid, though your arguments are nothing short of silly. Smells more like, desperate.
LikeLike
“but you guys want to bet your soul on a principle(not historic truth)”
Because principles never come into play when analyzing history. Reason/philosophy evil!
“Your own communion rejects your religious practice.”
The communion during the revolution in 65 still affirmed its principles and claims of infallibility, stm-triad, and divine authority last I checked.
LikeLike
I like the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the Golden Dome, Basilica of the Sacred Heart as wonderful examples of Second Empire/Gothic architecture on the ND campus, and all things Notre Dame Fighting Irish in the way of being ‘Americana’, like baseball, apple pie, etc., but I also like the Michigan Wolverines, too…………..some games are hard to find the side to root for………….Nebraska versus California or UCLA
Roman Catholic art, architecture, and music is hard to beat sans erroneous theology……Thomas Tallis is tremendous chorale music…….Bramante, Michaelangelo, and Bernini created a fantastic new basilica, and so on……..the Pieta, etc., all move people.
But to embrace praying to dead saints, transubstantiation, and, let us not forget the intercession of the blessed Mother………..well, you get the picture…………..
LikeLike
foxy lady, and the communion continued to practice those principles and claims?
Maybe Vat 2 gave people reasons for thinking not that it wasn’t true but that it wasn’t important. Heck, I’m now part of a church that has truth.
Love me.
LikeLike
Second-thoughts about the sensum fidei:
Whom are you going to believe?
LikeLike
Cleat, channel more Calvin, yes.
LikeLike
Semper, ding. Do the Callers understand that they more they type (and enjoin Prots to think more than five minutes about the claims), the less attractive Catholicism becomes? The suggestion to clam up and simply let Roman vibes woo has its merits.
LikeLike
Woo vibes, yes. Despite all his protestations and intellectualizations, you have to Jason just thought one day “This presby stuff isn’t doing it for me. That looks cool.”
LikeLike
zrim, so is it the eeevangelical need to give testimonies that keeps them yapping?
Or is it simply chauvinism papering over doubt (which may explain all the talk about new-found certainty and papal over-the-topness)?
LikeLike
““Tons of people have understood your theology and converted. Tons of people understand your theology and reject it.”
Unfortunately, far less than tons of Catholic converts have read Amerio’s devastating “Iota Unum.” Those who do tackle it quickly lose the adolescent swagger of the Callers. 600 plus pages of depressing realism have that effect. It will also leave many wondering how so many former seminarians could be so poorly unread in the history that mitigates against — as well as the actually well-composed literature critical of — their own position. But then, people who can’t smell the poorly-cleaned up residue of 20th century liberalism that was left lingering over a White Elephant like Evangelii Gaudium were probably never big A-plussers in Literary Theory.
LikeLike