To communion but not to education:
The ascendant liberalism at modern Catholic colleges is a problem that has perplexed parents with traditional Catholic beliefs for decades now. Bishop Sheen went so far as to recommend that Catholic parents steer their children toward state and private colleges rather than Catholic institutions, contending it would be better to have their faith ignored at a secular college than actively undermined by liberal Catholic professors at a Catholic college.
Not everyone agrees with Sheen. I can remember an exchange on this topic in Triumph magazine back in the 1970s. I can’t recall who it was who disagreed with Sheen’s position, but his point was that even a Catholic college with a theology and philosophy department dominated by liberation theologians was a better choice than a secular college. The writer in question contended that the odds were good that a student would be able to find at least a few professors loyal to the Church at liberal Catholic colleges to help them grow in their faith, something not likely at secular colleges. Beyond that, he felt that spending four years in a Catholic atmosphere of available daily Masses, and the trappings of stained-glass windows and statues of the saints would have a favorable influence on the spiritual life of young people of college age.
My own view? I went back on forth on the question, but I did send my daughter in the 1990s to a Jesuit college that I knew was far more liberal than the Jesuit college I attended in the 1960s. She learned little about Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain while in attendance, but I did not regret my decision. I am convinced that the Catholic cultural environment in which she was immersed was a healthy influence on her spiritual growth.
I was recently surprised to discover that there are professors at Catholic colleges these days who ponder this very issue, who worry about what it will mean if the Catholic identity of their institutions is lost.
Why don’t Jason and the Callers ever talk about Boston College?
Old Life 
Or the University of St. Thomas for that matter…
LikeLike
“I can’t recall who it was who disagreed with Sheen’s position, but his point was that even a Catholic college with a theology and philosophy department dominated by liberation theologians was a better choice than a secular college.”
How about an entire Catholic Church dominated by a liberation theologian/Pope?
LikeLike
“I can’t recall who it was who disagreed with Kloosterman’s position, but his point was that even a Reformed college with a theology and philosophy department dominated by 2K theologians was a better choice than a secular college.”
LikeLike
And speaking of
FredoBoston College, there is an interesting interview with Dreher from his recent visit. From the interview,Also,
Given the support Law has received from the Vatican and the lavish celebration thrown in honor of his “service” to Boston (ahem), one might be forgiven for doubting the ability of any these guys to provide a living infallible interpretation of the putative infallible magisterium.
LikeLike
“The writer in question contended that the odds were good that a student would be able to find at least a few professors loyal to Neocalvinism at 2K Reformed colleges to help them grow in their faith, something not likely at secular colleges.”
or
“The writer in question contended that the odds were good that a student would be able to find at least a few professors loyal to 2K at Neocalvinist Reformed colleges to help them grow in their faith, something not likely at secular colleges.”
LikeLike
Erik, I also like asking questions I already know the answer to.
LikeLike
“Beyond that, he felt that spending four years in a Reformed atmosphere of available daily chapels and the trappings of pipe organs and statues of Abraham Kuyper would have a favorable influence on the spiritual life of young people of college age.”
LikeLike
sdb, give us some juice.
Everything’s great. Did you hear the Yankees have 27 world championships?
LikeLike
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1021011/posts
LikeLike
http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/about_the_college/faculty/biography.php?ID=292
LikeLike
Even the usually reliable Peter Kreeft can’t bring himself to condemn Boston College. The Catholic tendency t support the hierarchy is its own undoing. Witness the loveliest for Francis, who is single-handeldly undermining the papacy every bit as much as the sex abuse scandal did a decade ago. And yet we have to love him because he is “Papa”… It is pure crap. He is a misguided, culturally-blinkered Argentine trying bend the Vatican to the Third World minutes, as if that is a good thing. A complete and total joke, and yet Bryan Cross will weigh in with deference because that is the “godly” thing…. Heaven help us. No wonder Vaticna II was such an easy coup to implement. Very depressing. Romano America, call your office. Scott Hahn, well, don’t let us interrupt your ambitious lecture schedule, right? The evangelical Catholics need to have a crisis of conscience and realize pretending that Church doctrine has not changed is like pretending we never thought Ham’s curse was the negro thing.
LikeLike
Liberation theology is not necessarily liberalism.
It’s actually an attempt to work out in practice a two-kingdom model in an secularised setting. Its an a vision of the church’s relationship to the world — a Catholic version of “immanentised eschatology” or “over-realized eschatology” — in which the mission and evangelical mandate of the church is “postponed” in favour of political and socio-economic reforms and changes.
Much like revivalism and some version of Presbyterianism where social order should be sorted out first and then comes the revival OR revival comes first and then only comes the order …
Liberation is not the problem … the ROOT problem is the discerning the distinction between law and gospel … the problem that applies to both Reformed & Presbyterian or Calvinists as much as Catholics … which is why if 2k is not grounded properly in the distinction it can only go so far and quickly lapses into another of fundamentalism …
LikeLike
The obligatory Lutheran clip. At 1:24
Yes, only Lutherans correctly discern the L/G distinction; whatever.
LikeLike
Yes, there is much dissent in RC universities. Which just proves that RC claims are one hundred percent on point. The magesterium is infallible but not impeccable. The magesterium serves as a mechanism to resolve disputes but not prevent them. Very basic stuff. Yawn.
LikeLike
The distinction between law and gospel is not only in relation to the content but FUNCTION too …
A command to repent and believe is not the gospel (not according to Luther and the original Reformation) …
Believing in propositions belongs to the law, i.e. it functions as law. OTOH, the words of absolution “I forgive you” especially when it is given flat-out … just like that … is gospel …
This is why the free offer of the gospel and its nemesis (the command or duty faith Reformed folks) are both in the wrong position …
The response is not in addition to the unconditional promise … the unconditional promises DOES WHAT IT SAYS AND SAYS WHAT IT DOES … THERE AND THEN …
LikeLike
Kenneth,
The magesterium serves as a mechanism to resolve disputes but not prevent them.
Absolutely nothing has been resolved when there’s no discipline. It either remains unsettled, or Rome really doesn’t believe what it says about issue x. Either way, it makes toast of your claims. Which is why Bryan, Jason, et al have to finally resort to pure theory “Well, in Roman Catholicism the mechanism at least exists . . . somewhere.” It’s as impressive a claim as the one made by the fatherless child who keeps insisting that His dad is really the president of the United States and one day he’ll come for him. And it’s just as sad a claim as well.
It’s pure insanity.
LikeLike
Meanwhile in other RC news, the infallible Benedict said animals don’t go to heaven and the infallible Francis said they do:
http://www.businessinsider.com/pope-francis-animals-go-to-heaven-2014-12
The 77-year-old pontiff [Francis] then concluded: “One day we will see our animals again in eternity of Christ. Paradise is open to all God’s creatures.”
But soon after publication of the article, Pope Francis’ predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, moved quickly to slam shut firmly the pearly gates of heaven against animals, declaring in the midst of his brief papal tenure, that animals are “not called to the eternal life,” and pointing out that animals are never mentioned in connection with salvation and eternal life in the Christian scriptures.
Cue the RC response. “Well OBVIOUSLY, neither pope was speaking infallibly on a matter of faith and morals. Although they fulfilled the criteria of saying it while hanging upside down on Tuesday the 1st, they did not fulfill the criteria of saying it while wearing ‘the pope is my homeboy’ shirt and wearing a clown wig. So the mechanism is intact and you’re begging the question by suggesting that RCism really isn’t the bee’s knees.”
LikeLike
loser ken, and pedophilia also proves infallibility?
So apostasy is impossible. Tell that to John Zmirak.
Look, if you know what orthodoxy is and that the pope won’t change it, then you know orthodoxy independently of the pope and can judge him by a truth to which he must conform. If you only know the truth because it’s what the pope tells you is true, then you don’t know what the truth is independently from the pope. You can’t be Roman Catholic on Protestant grounds, silly.
LikeLike
Robert, so how much of what popes say is hot air?
And if popes are going to speak about pets, how seriously do we take them on — like — ISIS?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Robert, so how much of what popes say is hot air?
You’re begging the question by assuming that hot air even exists when Bryan and Kenneth say a pope wasn’t speaking infallibly. You really need to go back to logic school and study the motives of credibility which apart from any assumption that Rome is true convince people that Rome is true.
LikeLike
Don’t you just know that the trads have worked out some logical algorithm where they still pledge fidelity to the Pope Emeritus while claiming Francis is not ‘their’ pope. As if Ratzinger isn’t just as steeped and committed to German liberalism and higher critical method as Kung with the caveat that he still acknowledges the office of the papacy. Not that that’s uber convenient or anything.
LikeLike
But, Erik, what would be a 2k Reformed college? Isn’t education the laboratory for worldview? 2k doesn’t beget schools.
LikeLike
Kenneth, what’s “magisterium is infallible but not impeccable”? Is that like “water is wet but only in spots”? And if the “magisterium serves as a mechanism to resolve disputes but not prevent them,” then why howl at the “Bible serves as a mechanism to resolve disputes but not prevent 30k denoms”? Why do you get to have imperfections when claiming infallibility but we can’t when not claiming the same? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
LikeLike
Kenneth – Yes, there is much dissent in RC universities. Which just proves that RC claims are one hundred percent on point.
Erik – Where did you study logic? This statement makes no sense whatsoever.
So the more people disagree with X, the more we can know X is true?
I strongly disagree with the teachings of Anton LaVay and “The Satanic Bible”. Many, many others disagree with them, too. Therefore they must be true?
Whether many people agree or disagree with a system has no bearing on its truth or falsehood.
You’re also 180 degrees opposed to Caller Jeremy Tate. He says that Rome must be true because it’s so big and so many people agree with Catholic teaching.
You guys need to get your story straight.
LikeLike
That’s a blog post:
http://literatecomments.com/2014/12/11/how-can-dissent-from-roman-catholic-teaching-and-agreement-with-roman-catholic-teaching-both-be-evidence-for-the-truth-of-roman-catholic-teaching/
LikeLike
Zrim – But, Erik, what would be a 2k Reformed college? Isn’t education the laboratory for worldview? 2k doesn’t beget schools.
Erik – I have an idea what we could use for our fight song:
LikeLike
mps, i had to put that one on twitter. thx.
LikeLike
That’s why I think Zrim and Sean and co need to be on twitter. As Cw says, the mind boggles.
In other words, so many possible good responses to “what would be a 2k reformed college.”
Twitter is for the birds, i know, i know…sigh.
LikeLike
I say again. Spend some time at Catholic Answers for a thorough education in the utterly chaotic and confused state of Catholicism on the ground where people live. I literally could not take watching lives destroyed by the ungodly psychobabbling pagan advice being given and heeded in the marriage forum there. I was actually losing sleep. After a few hundred posts I just couldn’t take any more.
Oh I know the Romanists will say that people aren’t following Church doctrine and dogma, but that’s the point. A church claiming to be what Rome claims should have no problem enforcing at least outward faithfulness upon it’s communicants. She’s an enormous, morbidly obese, spiritual graveyard.
LikeLike
Yes, liberal universities exist. So do liberal priests and bishops. Not shocking anymore than the synod was shocking. If parents are truly concerned, there are options – http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/TheNewmanGuide/RecommendedColleges.aspx
“Cue the RC response. “Well OBVIOUSLY, neither pope was speaking infallibly on a matter of faith and morals. Although they fulfilled the criteria of saying it while hanging upside down on Tuesday the 1st, they did not fulfill the criteria of saying it while wearing ‘the pope is my homeboy’ shirt and wearing a clown wig. So the mechanism is intact and you’re begging the question by suggesting that RCism really isn’t the bee’s knees.”
RCism has laid down the criteria for infallibility in the Vat1 definition (as well as its subsequent discussions) which was informed by historical cases. It’s not some arbitrary chimerical thing. So yes, just assuming whenever the pope speaks he is speaking infallibly in order to then disprove papal infallibility begs the question. If you’d like to make an attempt to show how Francis’ or Benedict’s statements meet the criteria, that would be more productive than mere assertions.
It’s bizarre how you all impose your arbitrary standard and definition of infallibility and how it should work to “disprove” papal or ecclesiastical infallibility and assume RCs should just agree with it when you would never in a million years let atheists or liberals get away with imposing their standard and definition of inerrancy and how it should work to “disprove” scriptural inerrancy or inspiration.
LikeLike
Cletus,
It’s bizarre how you all impose your arbitrary standard and definition of infallibility and how it should work to “disprove” papal or ecclesiastical infallibility and assume RCs should just agree with it when you would never in a million years let atheists or liberals get away with imposing their standard and definition of inerrancy and how it should work to “disprove” scriptural inerrancy or inspiration.
EXACTLY! You nailed it. Selective skepticism is wack.
LikeLike
sigh…
wcf chapter 1 anyone? shall i start blogging again? really?
i certainly won’t be going to the website Mr. T is talking about, we have enough cats roaming these streets as it is, yo.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Kenneth, what’s “magisterium is infallible but not impeccable”? Is that like “water is wet but only in spots”?
Wetness is a characteristic of water. Impeccable behavior is not a characteristic of infallible teaching. Remember Paul rebuking Peter?
And if the “magisterium serves as a mechanism to resolve disputes but not prevent them,” then why howl at the “Bible serves as a mechanism to resolve disputes but not prevent 30k denoms”?
The existence of the 30k denoms is evidence that scripture is not resolving disputes. Lets take a smal historical sample. From the time of the reformation until today the magesterium has intervened *numerous times* to resolve disputes. Think Trent, V1, the condemnation of Jansenism etc. etc.
In each of those instances there were biblical and historical disputes that were not able to be resolved *with certainty* through reason alone. Without an infallible magesterium, the Church would have divided in each instance into several new denominations. Happily, because we do have a magesterium, in each instance the RCC resolved the dispute and was able to move the theological ball forward while preserving unity. The bible alone has failed to accomplish this 33,000 times.
LikeLike
Erik,
Erik – Where did you study logic? This statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Ill answer your questions on your own home field
LikeLike
you know when kids ask why why why al the time?
why did that just enter my head?
why is kilowatt comparing darryl to olaf?
does he read any of the other four horseman? hitchens maybe?
giddy up cowboy.
LikeLike
Kenneth – Ill answer your questions on your own home…
Erik – …Where no one but me and you will read it.
LikeLike
well let’s start the insanity
LikeLike
Erik,
You’re right. Copy n paste
You providing arguments that the Roman Catholic Church is not impeccable serves as evidence for the Catholic Magesteriums claim that she is…… not impeccable.
It does not provide evidence against the Catholic claim that the magesterium is infallible when teaching on faith and morals.
Happy I could help.
LikeLike
This is like Tom Van Dyke and Greg the Terrible wanting to have intimate e-mail conversations that I eventually had to resort to blocking them over.
O.K. Maybe not that bad.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Oh yeah.
We forget that there is the Catholic Church that is dirty and dog-eared and then there’s the Catholic Church that is neatly preserved under the glass.
We keep confusing the two. #StupidProtestants.
LikeLike
kenneth, you want to talk church history? i would post at your blog, but i’m creepy (like zrim is dumb? is olaf dumb? darryl?)
listen to these both sets, and tweet me. i’ll be crying because i don’t have the kind of charism that you clearly have, as diplayed in your comboxxes here.
fore, my friend.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
So let’s get this straight: Your new apologetic boils down to:
“So you think the Catholic Church sucks? Well we Catholics do, too!”
Try getting Bryan to write 10,000 words defending that one.
LikeLike
AB,
I apologized for calling zrim dumb (remember the captain morgan). Apparently I need to ask for your forgiveness too. I am sorry for calling one of your friends names. Do you forgive me? (comparing DG to Olaf is too good to apologize for)
LikeLike
katniss kenneth,
just don’t forget who the real enemy is. you don’t need to ask my forgiveness, you are already forgiven, if you are xtian. enjoy your day, i haven’t golfed in months (please pray for me).
LikeLike
ps and just incase that last arrow flew over your head, you really don’t need to ask for forgiveness, nor do you need to see his identification, those aren’t the droids you are looking for.
LikeLike
Kenneth, neither are they resolved with certainty by an (alleged) infallible magisterium. The best you can do is get it right and that imperfectly. Why that is insufficient isn’t clear (though one could speculate). But what seems clear is that there is as much unity and schism within the RC ranks as there is Protestant. The difference is that the latter seem more able to admit the mixed bag than former.
“Impeccable behavior is not a characteristic of infallible teaching.” Agreed. It’s a characteristic of an infallible source. The Bible never lies. Popes do, thus they cannot be infallible.
LikeLike
The magisterium is infallible but isn’t impeccable?
LikeLike
That’s not all, sdb and Zrim. Persons are also more perspicuous and reliable than texts. Though to hear the trads talk about Francis, they may have to amend that part of the apologetic if he lives much longer.
LikeLike
It’s a doubly odd distinction when you think that Ratzinger was just as steeped in deconstructive biblical hermenuetics as Francis or even Kung, but being German he wasn’t about to let go of the aristocratic mantle, ruby shoes and all, and that apparently makes all the difference for them. That and the ‘transcendence’ of the Latin Mass. Not that they know Latin.
LikeLike
SDB,
No.
like I told EC.
LikeLike
lame fox, no, what’s bizarre is that you actually believe papal infallibility.
LikeLike
loser ken, entire gullibility is wacked on koolaid.
LikeLike
erick, it’s called Called to Theoretical Communion.
LikeLike
“Persons are also more perspicuous and reliable than texts”
If the two work together in tandem, I fail to see how that obviously doesn’t allow for greater interpretive clarity than the text alone. Is Finnegans Wake more perspicuous alone than FW plus Joyce sitting next to me? Is the film Primer or a Lynch movie more perspicuous without the director-writer sitting next to me?
“Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”
“In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again.”
“His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
“Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”
LikeLike
Cletus,
If the two work together in tandem, I fail to see how that obviously doesn’t allow for greater interpretive clarity than the text alone. Is Finnegans Wake more perspicuous alone than FW plus Joyce sitting next to me? Is the film Primer or a Lynch movie more perspicuous without the director-writer sitting next to me?
Hint: The Magisterium is not the Apostolate. It doesn’t have the same inspiration. Even Rome claims that. Find a better analogy or go be a Mormon which does claim the same inspiration.
LikeLike
Robert,
Sean’s point was that a person doesn’t offer any more (actually less) degree of perspicuity or reliability than the text alone. You apparently concede a person can, but now move goalposts so that only inspired people would. So I’d like to know why inspired people would offer greater interpretive clarity, but a person who was not inspired but had the same divine apostolic authority (which Rome does claim) to interpret inspired text would not offer greater interpretive clarity. Perhaps that person doesn’t exist. If theoretically they exist, would they offer greater interpretive clarity? If so, it’s simply another defeater for Sean’s point.
As to the analogy, you seem to grant the author or writer-director sitting next to me offers greater perspicuity to their work than the film or text alone. An author or writer-director is not adding to the book or film as I ask them questions about it – the book or film is complete and fixed as is.
LikeLike
foxy lame, and when does the pope ever pay attention to Scripture? I like Francis and think he has some of the courage of his convictions. But what did he say to the EU Parliament? Why didn’t he summon up some of that courage and tell them about Jesus? Mary even?
LikeLike
foxy lame, “you seem to grant the author or writer-director sitting next to me offers greater perspicuity to their work than the film or text alone.”
And does that apply to Boniface VIII? So wouldn’t he interpret Unam Sanctam better than bishops in Rome some 400 years later?
LikeLike
Not everyone is perfect:
LikeLike
Cletus,
Sean’s point was that a person doesn’t offer any more (actually less) degree of perspicuity or reliability than the text alone. You apparently concede a person can, but now move goalposts so that only inspired people would.
Your analogy specifically claimed that the text plus the actual author of that text can be clearer. That assumes the Magisterium or any other such body are the authors of the text. If you want to claim that Francis wrote the book of Romans or the book of Matthew be my guest.
So I’d like to know why inspired people would offer greater interpretive clarity, but a person who was not inspired but had the same divine apostolic authority (which Rome does claim) to interpret inspired text would not offer greater interpretive clarity. Perhaps that person doesn’t exist. If theoretically they exist, would they offer greater interpretive clarity? If so, it’s simply another defeater for Sean’s point.
If Paul were sitting here, he could help me better understand the book of Romans, which He wrote WHILE HE WAS UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. And again, Paul is not here.
As to the analogy, you seem to grant the author or writer-director sitting next to me offers greater perspicuity to their work than the film or text alone. An author or writer-director is not adding to the book or film as I ask them questions about it – the book or film is complete and fixed as is.
Rome isn’t the author of Scripture. Are you now claiming to be the reincarnation of Peter and Paul.
The parallel you suggest is that Joyce-Finnegan’s Wake can clear up matters better than just Finnegan’s wake because you can ask Joyce questions. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. But Magisterium-Scripture isn’t Joyce-Finnegan’s Wake. The better analogy would be, and I’m here being EXTREMELY generous here, is that the Magisterium is a scholar of Joyce living centuries later. Can that scholar give us greater clarity. After a fashion, as long as He accurately interprets the text. But if he doesn’t, he’s useless in that regard. He doesn’t get a pass as to being automatically correct just because he’s a scholar. But that is exactly what Rome demands.
Again, Rome didn’t write the Bible. Neither did Protestants or Constantinople. So, you need to back away from the claim that persons can provide better clarity unless Rome is Paul, or Peter, of James… You’re not. You don’t claim that. You don’t even claim (right now anyway) to be inspired like they were, the inspiration by the way is what gave them the message.
Analogies that have absolutely no connection to the actual reality on the ground aren’t helpful and they work against you. That’s what Sean and Darryl keep pointing out.
LikeLike
Clete, it’s a very simple observation. The RC apologetic is not merely an argument for teachers, prots hold the same commitment, the argument centers around perspicuity or being readily knowable/comprehended. The trad RC apologist is claiming the magisterium is more perspicuous than the text. Not even trads believe that at this point. They all want Francis to stop talking, be clear, be precise, and he(in their estimation) is confusing-just on example, but a big one considering the whole audacity and apostolic succession of persons bit. The apostolic message-holy writ- is so readily understood that the recipients were supposed to be ready to reject actual apostolic witness if that witness contradicted the message already given-Gal. 1:8. So, as it turns out, your ‘principle of persons’ isn’t a Pauline principle( I’m glad I didn’t baptize many of you) but a construct of an abstract in your polemic against prots. Teachers are good and right and given, but when they contradict original apostolic witness they are anathema. Original apostolic witness trumps subsequent interpretation when there is a conflict. Should be an easy application unless one is serving a prior commitment
LikeLike
“But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo.”
If only we could get some of that at Called to Communion.
LikeLike
Robert,
“Your analogy specifically claimed that the text plus the actual author of that text can be clearer.”
Indeed it did. And if you agree to that, as you apparently do, so much for Sean’s point.
“If Paul were sitting here, he could help me better understand the book of Romans”
So much for Sean’s point.
“And again, Paul is not here.”
Nope, but the body with his same authority is.
“The parallel you suggest is that Joyce-Finnegan’s Wake can clear up matters better than just Finnegan’s wake because you can ask Joyce questions. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. ”
So much for Sean’s point.
“Can that scholar give us greater clarity. After a fashion, as long as He accurately interprets the text.”
So much for Sean’s point.
“But if he doesn’t, he’s useless in that regard.”
So the Jews were justified in rejecting the Apostles’ interpretation of texts because they don’t think they accurately interpreted the text? If the FW-Joyce scholar was indeed accurately interpreting FW to you, but because of your lack of expertise, you view him as instead inaccurately interpreting FW and so reject him for your flawed interpretation, how would you ever come to the correct conclusion that his interpretation was accurate and you were the one who was inaccurate? You seem to have denied such a possibility to yourself, even though you agree he could offer greater interpretive clarity.
Sean,
“The RC apologetic is not merely an argument for teachers, prots hold the same commitment, the argument centers around perspicuity or being readily knowable/comprehended.”
Are teachers necessary if Scripture is perspicuous and readily knowable/comprehended? If Scriptures are not perspicuous, teachers would be needed, so wherein lies the difference?
“The trad RC apologist is claiming the magisterium is more perspicuous than the text”
As I said above, I fail to see how it is not obvious a body/person (with unlimited potency for interpretive clarity) plus text offers greater interpretive clarity than a text alone. Is a scholar’s commentary plus Finnegans Wake more perspicuous than FW alone?
“The apostolic message-holy writ- is so readily understood that the recipients were supposed to be ready to reject actual apostolic witness if that witness contradicted the message already given-Gal. 1:8. ”
Cart before horse – they first had to accept Gal 1:8 and Paul’s gospel message in the first place to have the standard of comparison. Would they have been justified in rejecting his message if they thought his message contradicted the perspicuous OT?
“Teachers are good and right and given, but when they contradict original apostolic witness they are anathema. Original apostolic witness trumps subsequent interpretation when there is a conflict.”
So teachers are good and right as long as and only when they agree with my interpretation of original apostolic witness. The FW scholar is valuable only when he agrees with my interpretation of FW even though he supposedly can offer greater interpretive clarity.
LikeLike
But Darryl,
Jason said that one of the reasons Catholicism is superior is that it is pro-woman.
Worship of Mary and all that.
LikeLike
@CVD
Just a few items…
1) the ultimate author of scripture is the Holy Spirit — I can certainly imagine that there is much that came from Isaiah that he didn’t fully appreciate or understand. Subsequent authorities, with real authority and to whom we must submit, can and did get it wrong. Jesus corrects the Pharisees (as their tradition was in error) and reaffirms their teaching authority.
2) Reformed catechisms do not teach that all of scripture is equally plain. Rather, what is necessary to be known for salvation is what is clear. One can be wrong about an awful lot and still get through the pearly gates. Even Rome doesn’t claim to be able to infallibly interpret everything in scripture.
3) The supposed institutional unity of Rome viz a viz the state of protestantism is not a convincing argument:
a) the overwhelming majority of RCs dissent from putatively infallible teaching (e.g. BC, ssm, real presence, and infallibility). The faithful core is about the size of the OPC…
b) There have been splits (Copts, Orthodox, Nestorians, etc…) – Rome gained its dominance via the sword. It is rapidly losing Europe, N. America, and S. America. Where there is political freedom and an entrepreneurial spirit, there is an explosion in religious denominations. Notice that Islam and Judaism have comparable numbers of sects to pre-reformation Christianity without any concept of an infallible magisterium. The CtC charge that sola scriptura is a cause for denominationalism is belied by the experience of Islam. Interestingly enough, in the US there has been an explosion of islamic (and islamic-like) sects.
c) Many of the disputes simply aren’t settled and are still debated by your own scholars.
Not at all. I submit to my leadership. If I think they are wrong, I can work to run it up the presbytery flagpole. If they conclude I’m wrong, I submit (or convert to something else and cease to be a presby). Now you might be thinking that last parenthetical is what makes my conscience king. But then the same could be said of any RC who leaves Rome. The ability to walk away if I cease to believe isn’t a difference between Rome and Geneva. It is the difference between living on either side of the enlightenment.
LikeLike
size doesn’t matter, is how you use it..
but seriously, thanks sdb. that article by feynman on the other thread was wonderful, and apropros. i have that book by feynman, but haven’t read it yet. currently working through a str guy (koukl) for our midweek study.
anyway, your comment here is wonderful too. i used to try to blog about wcf issues, but i just got tom van dyke swearing up a storm, along with the comments from my mother. it’s indeed how we approach these folks, thanks a lot friend. happy holidays, and i’ll be lurking. peace.
LikeLike
whoops, i actually own this one of his. gee, thx a lot for adding another book to my list i want to read..sigh…..
LikeLike
Robert
Posted December 12, 2014 at 12:24 am | Permalink
Hint: The Magisterium is not the Apostolate. It doesn’t have the same inspiration. Even Rome claims that.
Shhh. Don’t tell Darryl. he’d run out of material.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 12, 2014 at 6:45 am | Permalink
foxy lame, and when does the pope ever pay attention to Scripture?
What noxious nonsense.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei.html
LikeLike
Took a Clete to the head, You assume what’s in contention. Paul’s apostolic authority isn’t in dispute, but Rome’s certainly is. So much for every point you made. And this is much more succinct. Work on it.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Step back and take a deep breath. Francis isn’t Paul. Francis can’t answer my questions about the meaning of baptism of the dead in 1 Corinthians like Paul could. To deny that is beyond absurd. You’re saying there was nothing at all special about the Apostles. Even Rome—nominally—affirms they were unique and special.
LikeLike
Is this parish part of the fullness of communion to which Jason and the Callers Call?
LikeLike
But everything is still fine. Nothing to see here:
LikeLike
Ya think?
LikeLike