More Doctrinal Evolution

If it’s wrong for Protestants to think that Calvin and Luther were simply reiterating what Paul and Peter taught, isn’t it also wrong for Roman Catholics to think that Trent was a doctrinal glimmer in the eye of the early church fathers? Merely waving the wand of doctrinal development won’t help you think historically, or understand that history is always moving, never static. And if history is fluid — which it is, as I, a licensed historian, can assure you — then what happened in the sixteenth century was not inevitable.

The way to look at it is that Luther and Calvin were in the mix of theological reflection that was going on for well over five hundred years and the Council of Trent decided to go one way and not the other. And if that is true, then Roman Catholicism as we know it (minus — ahem — Vatican I and Vatican II) started in the 1540s as much as Lutheranism started in the 1530s and Reformed Protestantism in the 1540s.

For support I appeal to Richard Muller:

The understanding of “catholic” and “schismatic” thought in the sixteenth century must be revised away from the modern denominational approach that, on the side of historians of the Roman Church, has all too willingly denied patristic and medieval roots to the Reformation and that, on the other side of older generations of Protestant historians, has tended to view the Middle Ages as harboring but few forerunners of the Reformation. The Reformers did not view themselves as schismatic; rather, they understood themselves as representative thinkers of the Catholic church. Nor can they be seen as radicals who allowed only the Bible as their foundation to the exclusion of tradition: their approach, as easily documented from their citations, was to use scripture as their ultimate norm and tradition as a subordinate, albeit fallible, support. This approach to the relation of scripture and tradition is, of course, contrary to the views of the Council of Trent, but it is surprisingly like the position of Thomas Aquinas and a great number of other major medieval thinkers. The Protestant use of patristic and medieval sources, moreover, became more explicit in the later generations of the Reformation; the nature of that reception should be a significant element of a revised historiography. (from Seeing Things Their Way)

Historians may not save us, but they can help.

Advertisements

195 thoughts on “More Doctrinal Evolution

  1. The way to look at it is that Luther and Calvin were in the mix of theological reflection that was going on for well over five hundred years and the Council of Trent decided to go one way and not the other.

    Very well put, your series here on the The Conciliarist Tradition comes immediately to mind. Anyone can throw “Francis Oakley” into your search field for about 10 posts on the topic, bravo.

    Like

  2. Last line is classic!

    In Stanley’s piece at the Telegraph on the recent Irish vote a commenter called the RCC a ‘hulk.’ That’s probably true. But the hulk isn’t completely empty. There are believers inside. They attend and pray the Mass every week and some on weekdays too.

    I guess a lot of things separate us but the two things that separate us that aid the Church, IMO, is the Protestant drive and need for the sovereignty of Christ and the RC need for the faith to be fuller than all of Scripture coming under the dominance of St. Paul. No slight meant to St. Pau who was a model Pastor, who with love or the rod was going to come all the same. My calendar at work and for the month of June has a sketch of St. Paul saying goodbye to the Ephesians. What a life!

    What drew me to see if I could find a place w/Protestants was my need to regain the knowledge that God is sovereign and the comfort that comes with that in sickness and in health.

    It’s like you write in your book Defending the Faith in the chapter on Science and Salvation:

    Likewise John Ransom Crowe, a principal figure among the Southern Agrarians, urged Christians to rediscover “the God of thunder” and abandon the “soft modern” Christ of mainstream Protestantism.

    Faithful RCs merit some respect, if for no other reason than however much the hierarchy might despise them, one group formed following the other, Christ is there for them, and not just in the Eucharist but in their daily walk.

    Like

  3. Walter Brueggemann on “Why the Old Testament Must not Go Away.” It’s long but I think it’s worthwhile.

    Like

  4. As Alister McGrath shows in his “Luther’s Theology of the Cross”, what he calls Luther’s breakthrough was a relatively modest (so it seems to me) extension of the via moderna, which had already begun to be taught at several universities that were not at all thought to be heterodox. if Luther had been a few years younger and his early theological concerns had not gotten intertwined with issues about the Pope’s various fund raising techniques, who knows what the reformation would have looked like.

    Like

  5. A.C. Piepkorn, prof at Concordia-St. Louis in the mid-20th century, always held that the real continuing church out of the reformation was the church of the Augsburg Confession. Trent was a mistaken reaction defining another church and anathematizing the authentic apostolic teaching.

    Like

  6. The way to look at it is that Luther and Calvin were in the mix of theological reflection that was going on for well over five hundred years and the Council of Trent decided to go one way and not the other. And if that is true, then Roman Catholicism as we know it (minus — ahem — Vatican I and Vatican II) started in the 1540s as much as Lutheranism started in the 1530s and Reformed Protestantism in the 1540s.

    Nice try. Excellent try. But The Catholic Church remains the Catholic Church; the other churches schismed. You can’t pretend to accept the Nicene Creed and discard the “one” and the “catholic” part.

    As we see here,

    http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/11/those-bloody-papists-even-term-roman.html

    the English Calvinists tried to hijack “catholic” for themselves and delegitimize the real Catholic Church by prepending “Roman.” The latter strategy worked a bit [although the official name is still “Catholic Church,” with no “Roman” in it], but nobody bothers to attempt the fiction that Calvinist churches are “catholic” anymore. [Instead, they seem to do the “true remnant” thing, and for some, the more remn the better.]

    Thus, Muller’s use of “Roman Catholicism” is pejorative, although that in itself isn’t fatal to his argument. Still, the “Roman” is inaccurate and he still loses on “catholic.”

    Good to see you hitting the books, Dr. Calvinism: A History. I like Muller because he actually understands Aquinas and tries to rehabilitate him here by setting the Council of Trent as the true date of schism.

    Or is Muller trying to claim Thomas [d. 1274] for the Reformation, bifurcating him from Trent [d.1573] and thus part of Rome, Geneva and Lutherstadt Wittenberg’s common Christian heritage? Interesting and interestinger.

    Like

  7. Hello “A Different Dan”,

    From what I understand from McGrath, justification by faith alone, was a theological new thing in church history. Maybe it could be argued( if we could find sources) that while it wasn’t official church teaching [ being squelched or ignored( also needing proof)], it was under current. The thing is, a person who is not caught in the middle of the dispute should have recourse to the truth. Can you tell me how we can reasonably resolve this dispute or confusion together. I would love to be shown, from history, that Luther’s doctrine was always there. This seems to be the very least that defenders of the Reformation should do. We as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ need a way to reconcile and, besides knowing the play by play of historical events, to know what was and not a justifiable reason to break from the church that……well…. they broke from. Because that is what happened. For the first church to be true, it had to always remain the true church knowing what doctrines can be considered true( not making it true, but calling “what is”,….”dogma”).
    So there had to be a reason why she could accept Luther’s theological novum.

    Just food for thought. I have an exam that I am busy doing, but I wanted to interject after I saw your comment.
    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=father+mitch+pacwa+justification+by+faith+alone&FORM=VIRE6#view=detail&mid=6D289FE7303A7323EE2C6D289FE7303A7323EE2C

    Best!
    Susan

    Like

  8. All your dislikes about Catholicism need to be pushed to aside as you investigate, “who is the church”.
    I hope you will listen and ask The Holy Spirit for guidance.

    I have grown fond of all of you, and wish you the best!

    Like

  9. Susan, it’s right there in the original apostolic tradition. Can you prove the Gregorian reforms were always there or the counter reformation? This seems to be the least Rome could provide. Actually, I’m still waiting on the infallible commentary on all of holy writ as well. So, that’s Gregorian reforms, counter reformation and infallible commentaries.

    Like

  10. My apologies.

    I meant to say:

    “So there had to be a reason why she could *not* accept Luther’s theological novum. “

    Like

  11. Hi Sean, hope you are well.

    Susan, it’s right there in the original apostolic tradition.

    I understand that you say that, but the Reformers do not have physical apostolic succession. If you change the meaning to “following the scriptures”, you actually change that “mark” to be what you want it to be. I’m all for learning how JFA is apostolic tradition.

    “Can you prove the Gregorian reforms were always there or the counter reformation? This seems to be the least Rome could provide.”

    Sean, would you tell me how Gregorian reforms caused a complete break-away from the our “mutual” and “identified” apostolic church?

    ” Actually, I’m still waiting on the infallible commentary on all of holy writ as well. So, that’s Gregorian reforms, counter reformation and infallible commentaries.”

    I would think that all respeaking of infallible truth would always be infallibly spoken. I’m pretty sure that scripture is inherent while the speaking of what is true, is infallible. I infallible say, that God is Trinity, and that Jesus has risen from the dead. This is without error, so it’s infallibly spoken.

    Like

  12. oops, scripture is ‘inerrant” not inherent.

    eek, sorry for so many typos. I’m having a glass of wine;)

    Like

  13. “From what I understand from McGrath, justification by faith alone, was a theological new thing in church history.”

    It has been a while since I read that, but my recollection is that his case was exactly the opposite. Namely, he laid out how Luther’s understanding of Justification was in the mainstream of medieval theological ideas.

    Like

  14. Susan
    Posted June 4, 2015 at 10:40 pm | Permalink
    All your dislikes about Catholicism need to be pushed to aside as you investigate, “who is the church”.
    I hope you will listen and ask The Holy Spirit for guidance.

    I have grown fond of all of you, and wish you the best!

    Peace, Sister Susan, and !!! respect. You hit it.

    The meanings of the 4 marks of the Church per the Nicene Creed, “one,” “holy,” “catholic” and “apostolic” have been deconstructed into meaninglessness. [Even “one.”]

    And the ‘5th mark’ of the aforementioned “church” is what “church” even means. Not even the plain and distilled Nicene Creed can survive the mutilation of its words, even by those who say they subscribe to it. You’re onto something very heavy here.

    Like

  15. Susan, I understand that I know that. Perspicuity. Gal 3. And persons not texts doesn’t work out to being more perspicuous-Vat II, or rise to apostolic authority-holy writ.

    Gregorian reforms-rise of the clerical class and formalization of papal supremacy.

    So, you stop at Nicea. Nothing else is infallible. I like Nicea. I’m a fan. Kinda falls short of the trad claims and you don’t believe in perspicuity, so, speaking infallibly in english or latin doesn’t mean much beyond the rhetoric.

    Like

  16. Hey sdb,

    We are all the unfortunate children of history IF we don’t have a way to understand what every person involved meant when they said such-and-such.

    If that was Medieval Scholastic theology and it was on par with the early church then it should be “positively” found out, for all of or sakes. Then we could all bury the hatchet and return “where” exactly? I’m not trying to be a pain in the neck. I really want to know where that “place” would be according to you all, where we could ALL unite. Is it with the mainline Protestants? The earlier the better, I’d assume…..so Lutheranism perhaps, or no? I have met some lovely Lutheran’s who call themselves “Catholic Lite”( “everything catholic minus the idols”). That excludes other Protestants unfortunate for them, however, who aren’t as well informed. Are they on the outside completely, not having the sacraments and all, or what, would you say?

    Could you dig and find those primary sources?

    Like

  17. Roman Catholics,

    How do you like open comments?

    Does seeing your many words as posted in the comments section of protestant blogs, namely, your rabies theologorum, help you sleep better at night?

    😉

    Like

  18. Sean,

    Susan, I understand that I know that. Perspicuity. Gal 3.

    Yes, I know. I’ve had this verse thrown at me before. The problem is that you don’t have a way to know if it applies to you or to me. This isn’t your fault. If you assume that the Reformers are justified you will naturally believe that I am bewitched by a different gospel. How do we use history, scripture, and tradition to resolve out terrible dispute? You are outside what is meant by apostolic church though. Gosh Sean, I hate this. I want to resolve, please show me how. I am not gleeful, I am heartbroken. You are my brother, always.

    ” And persons not texts doesn’t work out to being more perspicuous-Vat II, or rise to apostolic authority-holy writ.”

    And Reformed Catechisms are absolutely correct? You and I both are trusting “somebody”( hello anybody”) to know “what is Christianity” through some method.

    ‘Gregorian reforms-rise of the clerical class and formalization of papal supremacy.”

    I don’t follow history from the middle foreward. Neither do you. Look again at Catholicism’s self-doctrine of papal authority, and then prove that it only began to appear during the time of Gregorian reform.

    So, you stop at Nicea. Nothing else is infallible. I like Nicea. I’m a fan.

    Good, glad your a fan. I’m a fan of all that Catholicism had infallibly declared. Subjectivism gives me the heebie-jeebes. This world is scary and messed-up, so I’m relieved that I can know absolutely what is Christianity.

    Like

  19. From what I understand from McGrath, justification by faith alone, was a theological new thing in church history.

    It’s all done, folks:

    justifcation..

    1. … in Church History
    2. … and Prolegomena
    3. The Structure of Redemptive History
    4. … and the Covenant of Works
    5. … and the Work of Christ
    6. … in Its Historical Context
    7. … by Faith Alone
    8. … and the New Perspective on Paul
    9. … and Imputation
    10. … and Union with Christ
    11. … and Sanctification
    12. … and Final Judgment
    13. … and the Church
    14. … and the Roman Catholic Church
    15. … and the Eastern orthodox Church

    Like prego,it’s all in there. But no, you won’t read. Just more rabies T. Next comment please.

    Like

  20. Andrew,

    I would like to see the church fathers at any period prior the Reformation, promoting JBF “alone”. If you find a quote( or quotes) that include faith working through love as in Galatians 5:6, then you have proof from apostolic tradition that the church has never meant faith not to include
    works done through love. What if that was all the church ever meant? Today, I can comfortable subscribe to faith alone as long as it is working through love, as St Paul says( and Mrs. Webfoot has said).
    If I have not love then I have a mere fiduciary faith as in, “belief”. The devils believe that there is one God ( James 2:19).

    Like

  21. “The significance of the Protestant distinction between -iustificatio- and -regeneratio- is that a FUNDAMENTAL DISCONTINUITY has been introduced into the western theological tradition WHERE NONE HAD EXISTED BEFORE [emphasis by McGrath].”

    All I know is that we have different traditions coming at this. We are all unfortunate victims of history if God had not given us a way to weed through the contradictory voices. You are maybe inclined to think that whomever isolated the quote[above] is manipulating history to his favor. Well, if that is true where Catholicism stands to win, while at the same time being blatantly untrue, then kudos for no one. For nobody gains. Same thing goes if Protestantism is mistaken. How do we weed through shoddy theology and bias?

    Like

  22. Susan,

    You want what my reformed scholastic says?

    Why not listen to your priest?

    Peace to you on your journey.

    Like

  23. Susan,

    So I’m relieved that I can know absolutely what is Christianity.

    How do you know that you can know absolutely what is Christianity?

    Like

  24. Susan, I know because original apostolic tradition is knowable. So much so, that one(you/I) are accountable to it.(Gal 3).

    History is history. Paul was content to let the faith ride on historical events(incarnation/resurrection). Why aren’t you? Gregorian reforms, middle history, no Rome without it.

    Confessions don’t rise to holy writ. I’ve got no problems with subordinate authority.

    Is your slide to the use of ‘catholicism’ some sort of sleight of hand? You’re observant of roman catholicism. It’s quite particular. That’s the why of the ciao bella part.

    Like

  25. Susan,

    I’m happy to produce reformed resources that confirm the truth of what Gal 5:6 say, for instance:

    2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

    Protestants believe in faith alone as the instrument of justification, but it is never a faith that is alone. Again, more resources:

    heidelblog[dot]net/2014/05/faith-alone-is-the-instrument-of-justification-and-salvation/

    Well, if that is true where Catholicism stands to win, while at the same time being blatantly untrue, then kudos for no one. For nobody gains. Same thing goes if Protestantism is mistaken. How do we weed through shoddy theology and bias?

    Susan, it’s called sola scriptura. You need to go back and read WCF chapter 1. The proof texts are especially helpful. I’m relatively confident your priest could help you sort through these things. And if not, there’s a reformed Church in your area. Someone would be glad to sit you down.

    It’s nonsense to use one verse, Galatians 5:6, to somehow prove Martin Luther did not stand in the tradition of men before him when he began to reform the church. Classic prot/cath polemic time. Tell me where Tetzel’s indulgences or the co-redemptrix is in Roman Catholicism. Until you do that, we’ll continue to counter B. Cross’s narrative that prots should convert to RCism. Round and round we go.

    Queue Tom Van Dyke’s trumpeting of Susan and his over the top cheer leading of anything that he believes helps to bring DGH down.

    Did you finish your exams? Maybe you can get back to the Hobbit now.

    Grace and peace.

    Like

  26. It bums me out that RCs, nominal and otherwise, can’t seem to sort through church history as DGH presents it. We hear how bad this web blog and DGH is, and yet comment threads of the 800+ and the same RCs comment over and over. If this were a bad site, they would have ledt long ago. The more regular RC contributions this site receives, the more it is legitimate. Ironic.

    Like

  27. “Historians may not save us, but they can help.”

    except if minds be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

    Like

  28. “I hope you will listen and ask The Holy Spirit for guidance.”

    He has already spoken

    “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Matt 22:11 -13

    only one way to get those clothes – 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph 2:8-9

    Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3: 5 All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Gal 3: 27

    Like

  29. a., you’re faith is vain and worthless without the occurrence of events in history. Your devotion won’t save you.

    Like

  30. I was being all generous, as is my norm, and was gonna let it go. But, the ontological-renovative is just rome without the pomp and circumstance. Which rome has covered as well, btw, in the contemplative and monastic.

    Like

  31. “CWE L’u See Sean? Little a is unionized and you are not.”
    Aww CW, be l’unificateur. You are saying what Sean didn’t – he didn’t say he wasn’t devoted, just that he knows devotion doesn’t save him and I appreciate his comment because it is true, though I wish he’s spell out those critical ‘occurrences of events in history’ .

    Like

  32. sdb,

    It has been a while since I read that, but my recollection is that his case was exactly the opposite. Namely, he laid out how Luther’s understanding of Justification was in the mainstream of medieval theological ideas.

    You and Susan are both right concerning McGrath. McGrath’s argument is that the imputation of an alien righteousness is a theological novum. That is, it was a development that the church had not seen before. McGrath continues to demonstrate, however, that this novum did not pop out of nowhere. It springs forth from a diverse and robust medieval church.

    McGrath does not make this connection, but it’s like the Catholic argument that transubstantiation existed before the formal categories of Thomas to describe them. Thomas’s vocabulary was a theological novum, but the ideas sprang forth from the medieval church. It may be apologetically expedient to say Luther created a “theological novum,” but it dehistoricizes McGrath’s account.

    P.S: Are you from the South Bend area? I noted in another post your knowledge of the various parishes in that area was too expansive to be from an outsider.

    Like

  33. You know, a 4.6 billion year old earth is novum as well.

    Funny, in the OPC, people can believe that an be ordained.

    Animus imponentis recognizes “new light” the church receives as she confesses the faith in time.

    I still want to know why Susan is here posting and not reading the Hobbit.

    Like

  34. You know, even if Francis today accepted the OPC as the legitamite authority in Christianity for her adherence to the Word of Gosd, organizational division in our religion is still preferable and what we see in history and Scripture.

    Someone remind me why Bryan and the Jason’s keep doing what they do online? Anyone?

    Like

  35. CW: you KNOW we aren’t supposed to talk about enhancing our mystical UNION with and in and around and under Christ…. not in front of the pagans at least….

    Like

  36. Concerning the whole “faith without history is dead” idea, don’t we believe the historical events of the Bible on faith anyway, not historical evidence or scholarship? History (in the common era) is never settled (like science). Christians are the only ones with any certainty about history, and it only covers a small window. And those are the historical events we must have faith in.

    Like

  37. Walton, I take it as bolstering the fact of historical events of the OT when Jesus references them in the NT and apostles do so also in the Epistles.

    Like

  38. My thoughts as alluded to about, re: Animus imponentis:

    Dr. Strange says: 1) The Words Themselves, 2) the church studying and giving heed to what the original intent of those who framed the confession or its amendement was; and 3) additional light that the church gathers as it goes forward confessing this faith together – addtional light from further Biblical theological work of the church.

    #enoughaboutme

    Like

  39. Hey AB,
    Still lurking a little here I guess… Anyway, that Fesko book sure isn’t a cheap one. Looks interesting. Got it in my wish list. I’d like to see how he presents RC and EO views. I have been wanting to get this one on the Church by Fr. Louis Bouyer. Have a look at the table of context. http://www.amazon.com/The-Church-God-Christ-Temple/dp/1586173243

    Susan,
    You kind of walked into that [about “faith alone” actually including faith working through love]. You were the one recommending the Joint Declaration on Justification the other day, right? It points all of that out in the Reformed doctrine on justification and how the RC can agree with that view as it is actually held in Reformed doctrine. The polemic understanding is skewed. Luther was holding to a lot of actual Tradition just not all of it. His problems, seems to me, came into a more troublesome light in Bondage of the Will in regards to Tridentine dogmatic clarifications, but not by far. The problem is he had already put his private interpretation of the doctrines above what the authority of the Church could clarify. Therefore he had no reason to seek to reconcile his understanding to an authority he did not recognize as a guide. He was now on his own to interpret Tradition and Scripture and apply it to reality.

    Like

  40. Brandon,

    So how is history or science, or history as science, helping if we are reduced to believing the historical narratives as told through the lens of men who are divided on the subjects?
    If St Aquinas is wrong about transubstantiation we shouldn’t have found altars and priests through Catholicm’s history. Proof of a believe supported by long practice.
    If Luther was right, we should have found no altars or priests. Proof of a belief unaddressed as proved through long practice, therefore the belief itself has no historical support.

    Like

  41. MichaelTX,

    Fesko is irenic, yet retains his reformed bonafides. Indeed, if anyone is posting here for a while, I believe he/she should buy that book.

    As an alternative, James Buchanan’s book is the authority before Fesko came along, IMHO.

    Here’s a glowing review of the fesko book:

    greenbaggins[dot]wordpress.com/2008/10/29/john-fesko-on-justification/

    Don’t tell TVD we are talking about how man is right before God. He’s rather talk about his band the cookies, things like religion and stuff are too booring for Mr. Van Dyke, just FYI.

    Like

  42. Susan,

    You are writing in incomplete sentences and are in several instances incoherent. If you read it back to yourself, it should become clear. Try proof reading next time maybe? Food for thought.

    Like

  43. Susan, believe it or not, the Spirit speaks in the Word. Proving the Spirit speaks when bishops want to do more than Scripture warrants has yet to be proved, not to mention that is sure looks self-serving. At least argue for ongoing revelation by Mary.

    Like

  44. So, my thought on this is… The Catholic Church holds to the Nicene Creed. Any church that does is orthodox in that regard.

    Very few Protestant churches value unity. There used to be more value put on spiritual unity in spite of all the organizational disunity. However, that seems to have broken down as well. I am sure that all of us are aware of the huge battle between John MacAthur and 6 billion Charismatics and Pentecostals. Then there are the battles between JM and Baptist groups that are not Calvinistic. I like MacArthur in a lot of ways, but his battles are just one aspect of the joy it is to be Evangelical Protestant!

    You may say that you are really Reformed and confessional. That’s nice, but you have had some less public but no less divisive conflicts of late. I won’t rub salt in the wounds.

    Then there was the whole mess where Reformed joined forces with the gay community and feminists to help bring down the Mark Driscoll empire. I am not sure what victory and for whom was won there.

    I started to see a pattern. I realized that this pattern had been followed for 500 years. No, it’s not that conflicts in the Church started then or stopped when the Protestants split. Heavens no! What started then was the way that conflicts were settled – or rather never settled. If the church family does not agree with you, then just go off and start your own group and call it a church. That is the 500 years of Protestant history.

    Protestantism has no mechanism for resolving conflicts or for coming to an agreement over doctrine. You might say that the WCF and other confessions provide that way. I say that if a group within a confessing church decides that they no longer agree with the leadership, they can form a group and go off and start another Reformed confessing church, and say that the WCF backs them. No one can impose discipline on them, except may in a symbolic way.

    So, I saw no reason to stay within Protestantism. The beauty of the Catholic Church finally won me over. The things that are distinctly Catholic are the things I love the most.

    Y’all won’t get that, and that’s fine. You don’t have to. I’m just saying that it’s the 500 years of Protestant history that I couldn’t justify anymore. If you are happy where you are, then I am happy for you.

    There is only one Church that has made reconciliation with and within the whole family of God a top priority. I think that’s of the Holy Spirit.

    Any group can claim that it is truly following NT apostolic teaching. I see that as a problem. Others see that as the strength of Protestantism, I suppose.

    Like

  45. Susan, “following the scriptures”, you actually change that “mark” to be what you want it to be”

    As if tradition is so objective and transparent? At least we have words on pages. You have tongues.

    Like

  46. MWF,

    Keep working through that roman catholic convert cage phase you and susan are plagued with. We the reformed protestants will be here whenever you need us, today, tomorrow, or in future years. We are here to serve. Grace and peace.

    for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
    (1 Corinthians 11:19 ESV)

    #next

    Like

  47. Susan, I just saw your comment this morning and am a little pressed for time right now. Unfortunately due to the price of the McGrath volume and I had to get it through interlibrary loan, and I returned it two weeks ago. However profitable conterfactuals might be, I don’t (all about me), go to the trouble of reading this sort of thing for the purpose of engaging in protestant-catholic com-box debates, particularly on Calvinist websites. (I am a happy dumb, non reformed, Baptist) That said by way of preface, you will understand that many of your comments are beyond my level of concerns or interest.

    I think the key to my remarks about Luther is keeping in mind which Luther we are talking about, and McGrath’s book stops with the Heidelberg Disputations in 1518, which was held before an Augustinian Chapter House. The word disputation itself can give a misleading impression to the modern ear, since the word then did not connote any hint of a division beyond academics doing what they do, then and now– kind of like being the invited presenter at a conference. Luther’s debt to Augustine has been widely discussed and disputed, but what struck me as I read McGrath’s book was how much he owed to the via moderna, which was being taught at a variety of Universities. A Lutheran blogger has quoted one of McGrath’s sources, from 1511, that is strikingly close to Luther’s more fully developed thinking. http://strangeherring.com/2015/04/25/the-cardinal-cant-get-no-satisfaction/ a link which may have been posted here before. The point is, these ideas were out there in the non-heterodox western Catholic world before any such thing as the Reformation could be identified.

    For myself, (all about), I think that devout Catholic, Christopher Columbus, had as more of an impact on 16th and 17th history as Luther and Calvin combined. The chattering classes, then and now, have an overinflated sense of importance.

    Like

  48. Susan,
    You are probably right[sacrificial aspects continuation through Church history], but you should look at a traditional Missouri Synod Lutheran Church liturgy some time. The Liturgy often is more historically Catholic than the local Catholic Church. To bad they don’t have unity with the Church and the Real Presence. Though they do believe they do. No offence intended to any Lutherans. I have Lutheran friends and talk with them about our differences and similarities often.

    Like

  49. Mermaid, so what happens when conflicts are never settled in Roman Catholicism vd, t doesn’t accept dogma and he’s still there. Ireland votes for gay marriage and Pope Francis — who is hardly reticent — doesn’t say anything.

    This is like being American. How do you get out?

    Like

  50. Hart,
    “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls.” This is how the Catholic feels of his brother or sister in Christ. Christ is there judge if they follow not the commands of God. We will not leave God’s house just because God has yet to judge our fellow servant.

    Like

  51. Michael, she’s been at it for years, I think she can take it.

    Mostly, Susan, TVD, and less so MWF (she’s only been at it a month) are here for the attention IMHO.

    So she appreciates your feedback, I’m sure.

    Hi Susan.

    #nextcommentplease

    Like

  52. Hey Susan,

    Hope you’re well. The point I’m making is that the theological vocabulary and specification for alien righteousness and transubstantiation were “novums” at different points in history. So in one sense, Aquinas and Luther introduced theological “novums.” That does not mean, however, that they do not have parallel or precedent before the “novum.” Thus, simply because McGrath labels the doctrine of alien righteousness as a novum, it does not mean that McGrath believes that it is not a legitimate extension of the via moderna.

    Like

  53. Hi Michael,

    “You were the one recommending the Joint Declaration on Justification the other day, right?”

    No, that was Mrs. Webfoot.

    “The polemic understanding is skewed. Luther was holding to a lot of actual Tradition just not all of it. His problems, seems to me, came into a more troublesome light in Bondage of the Will in regards to Tridentine dogmatic clarifications, but not by far. The problem is he had already put his private interpretation of the doctrines above what the authority of the Church could clarify. Therefore he had no reason to seek to reconcile his understanding to an authority he did not recognize as a guide. He was now on his own to interpret Tradition and Scripture and apply it to reality.”

    “Luther was holding to a lot of actual Tradition just not all of it. His problems, seems to me, came into a more troublesome light in Bondage of the Will in regards to Tridentine dogmatic clarifications, but not by far.”

    Yes, I understand and agree. The point I’m trying to hash out with our Protestant friends is that if Luther is wrong about any doctrine that still divides us, how would they know.

    “The problem is he had already put his private interpretation of the doctrines above what the authority of the Church could clarify. Therefore he had no reason to seek to reconcile his understanding to an authority he did not recognize as a guide. He was now on his own to interpret Tradition and Scripture and apply it to reality”

    But remember our Protestant brothers are saying that he had to reject papal authority, not church authority. According to them authority is derived from scripture, and so if Luther could prove his doctrines as coming from the plain sense of holy scriptures( minus papal trappings) he could transfer authority away from “church authority and instead onto holy scripture. Of course, that would open a big can of worms for everyone after him. For if Luther was right, he was yet not content to let everyone take a bible and start their own church, therefore he must have thought that God( through scripture) authorized him to found a new ontological church and that would also mean changing the meaning of one, holy, and apostolic etc…

    What I don’t understand is why everyone is so trusting of Luther. Why him and not the men of the church prior to him? It’s historically dishonest to assert circumstantial ad hominems against Catholics, while propping up Protestantism on a hermeneutic of suspicion.

    Like

  54. Susan, we’re Augustinian:

    For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith & the manner of life – Augustine

    #payprayobey
    #nextcommentplease

    Like

  55. Susan, how about the apostolic authority of the apostles being both trustworthy and binding upon the conscience? Why can not everything that follows be subordinate?

    Like

  56. D.G. Hart:
    Susan, “following the scriptures”, you actually change that “mark” to be what you want it to be”

    As if tradition is so objective and transparent? At least we have words on pages. You have tongues.>>>>>

    What you have, D.G. Hart is what you say you have -“the system of church government that Calvin developed.”

    And you suggest this about his system.:
    “You want to knock the pride out of celebrity pastors? Make them Presbyterian.”

    However, that did not work in the case of Calvin himself. He was a proud, celebrity pastor who set up his little kingdom in Geneva.

    Now, you are free to build your church on him, but what you cannot do is say that it is superior to anything or that it is following apostolic authority any more than any other Protestant group can make that claim.

    Now, you may not be able to spell Presbyterian with “Me”, but you cannot spell it without Calvin.
    https://oldlife.org/2015/05/you-cant-spell-presbyterian/

    Like

  57. Morning Dr. Hart,

    “Susan, how does going to a church different from your family produce unity?”

    Yes, this is hard. Very hard. It’s a problem that Christianity without the magisterium cannot solve. My dear husband believes the Reformers were right, and I believe that the Reformers broke away and started new churches, and so because of this we, the victims of our predecessors beliefs and actions( whomever it is that is actually correct), are paying for it down to even the family level.
    The way we deal with it, is that I go to Mass alone and we go to a Lutheran service together. After two years of my family continuing to go to the church that excommunicated me, it’s nice to have a place that sort of straddles both worlds. They call themselves Catholic Lite 🙂 They are an incredibly loving group of people. We are blessed to have found them.

    Like

  58. what you cannot do is say that it is superior to anything

    Who said anything about being superior?

    MWF, you and TVD and Susan and MichaelTX are the yankees fans here.

    But with comments like that you sound more like Bosox fans, for reals, yo.

    #cagephaseromancatholicconvert

    Like

  59. Susan,

    I had no idea you and your husband were split over the prot/cath divide in Xtiandom.

    That helps me understand why you can’t stop commenting here. It’s personal for you, I see.

    What do your children think of having their household torn apart by the reformation? Do they go to all those services together as well, or are they mixed (some go to some services, others to others). I imagine if I had something like that in my household, my children would be very confused. I would be working diligently and frequenlty to put an end to such disruption in the understanding of the Xtian religion in my household, for the souls under my care. Wow, what a rough situation. Curious for your thoughts is all, no need to answer.

    Grace and peace.

    Like

  60. Susan,

    I know this will not satisfy your curiosity of why there is a divide in Xtiandom that we have, since I’m sure you’ve been told this 1000 times. But the corruption in the RC church was very very bad when Luther instituted reforms and realized the need to found a new religion based on the teachings of scripture, primarily, what is written in galatians. For you or any lurkers this modern documentary in two parts (the 2nd part is a link in the description field) does justice to what the times were like, narated by Liam Neeson. I don’t care where your family ends up whether roman catholic or reformed but that’s really really hard, and my heart goes out to the Vaders, as a father, husband, and officer in Christ’s Church. I will pray for you guys. When I asked my OP elders as I was exploring the claims of Bryan cross and his little club, that was their response – corruption in the church. Th emore you look, the more you see. I am reading the book on Edgaro Mortara right now. It’s fascinating, the corrption continued into the 19th century and well into our own day. That’s hard for your roman catholics eyes to read my typing here, perhaps, maybe not. But It would take probably 200 or 300 years of cleaning up before I felt comfortable raising children as RCs. If I was a cradle RC, would I hvae left the roman church? Probably, but maybe not. As a cradle protestant, I am horrified by the roman church and pray that this situation does not linger. But you have your convictions, but agian, the corruption is so severe, it was, and I believe still is, I think you shoudl flee, but follow your heart of course.

    Grace and peace. You should talk to elders and not a deacon likeme, I just shoot my mouth off, I know it. Gotta stop commenting, but that’s super interesting and I am sorry for you. take care. I would actually stop commenting in blogs if I were you, this seems too dicey. There, that’s enough for you to dwell on 😛

    Like

  61. Susan,
    Thanks for the correction.

    The point I’m trying to hash out with our Protestant friends is that if Luther is wrong about any doctrine that still divides us, how would they know.

    Just like Luther knew he was right. He believed he was in spite of any ecclesiastic authority. It is an individual understanding system. Protestants only change when they understand differently. This will only happen with willingness to the possibility of being wrong or the possibility of there being a greater understanding of truth in reality. No one can do this for anyone else. We can only pray and help those who want to know something else that they feel we may know. It is a pickle[the freedom/commandments God gives us]. Love God, love your neighbor as yourself. If we love God we will keep His commandments. Hope that helps relay my understanding.
    Peace,
    Michael

    Like

  62. It is an individual understanding system. Protestants only change when they understand differently.

    #ding

    From Chapter 8, entited What is Truth, in Tillich’s, The New Being:

    It is the dignity and the danger of Protestantism that it exposes its adherents to the insecurity of asking the question of truth for themselves and that it throws them into the freedom and responsibility of personal decisions, of the right to choose between the ways of the sceptics, and those who are orthodox, of the indifferent masses, and Him who is the truth that liberates. For this is the greatness of Protestantism: that it points beyond the teachings of Jesus and beyond the doctrines of the Church to the being of Him whose being is the truth.

    #next

    Like

  63. Quote is all good and merry until this part is considered: “For this is the greatness of Protestantism: that it points beyond the teachings of Jesus and beyond the doctrines of the Church to the being of Him whose being is the truth.
    What if the doctrines of the Church and Jesus are the only access to Truth Himself; both here and extending into eternity and we have shut that door before ever walking through it.

    Like

  64. It is an individual understanding system. Protestants only change when they understand differently

    But I’m not in Tillich’s regiment. No sir.

    Acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ, as He is offered
    to us in the gospel of His redeeming work, is saving
    faith. Despairing of any salvation to be obtained by
    our own efforts, we simply trust in Him to save us;
    we say no longer, as we contemplate the Cross, merely
    “He saved others” or “He saved the world” or “He
    saved the Church”; but we say, every one of us, by the
    strange individualizing power of faith
    , “He loved me
    and gave Himself for me.” When a man once says
    that, in his heart and not merely with his lips, then no
    matter what his guilt may be, no matter how far he
    is beyond any human pale, no matter how little oppor-
    tunity he has for making good the evil that he has
    done, he is a ransomed soul, a child of God forever.
    source

    #JGM
    #ICouldKeepGoing

    Like

  65. Yeah, AB.
    I know you aren’t a Tillchian disciple, but his quote is still a reasonable assessment of Protestantism and its view of Church unity and authority. Just my opinion though.

    Like

  66. All Catholics should be able to agree with Machen here for sure: Despairing of any salvation to be obtained by our own efforts, we simply trust in Him to save us; we say no longer, as we contemplate the Cross, merely “He saved others” or “He saved the world” or “He saved the Church”; but we say, every one of us, by the strange individualizing power of faith, “He loved me and gave Himself for me.”

    Like

  67. speaking of john owen, there’s an article about puritains, where we read..

    We must also be sure to distinguish between orthodox and fundamentalism. The orthodox period of Protestantism has very little to do with what is called fundamentalism in America. Rather, it has special reference to the scholastic period of Protestant history. There were great scholastics in Protestantism, some of them equally as great as the medieval scholastics… . Such a thing has never been done in American fundamentalism. Protestant Orthodoxy was constructive. It did not have anything like the pietistic or revivalistic background of American fundamentalism. It was objective as well as constructive, and attempted to present the pure and comprehensive doctrine concerning God and man and the world. It was not determined by a kind of lay biblicism as is the case in American fundamentalism—a biblicism which rejects any theological penetration into the biblical writings and makes itself dependent on traditional interpretations of the word of God. You cannot find anything like that in classical orthodoxy. Therefore it is a pity that very often orthodoxy and fundamentalism are confused.

    and

    One of the great achievements of classical orthodoxy in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was the fact that it remained in continual discussion with all the centuries of Christian thought. Those theologians were not untheological lay people ignorant of the meanings of the concepts which they used in biblical interpretation. They knew the past meanings of these concepts in the history of the church which covered a period of over fifteen hundred years. These orthodox theologians knew the history of philosophy as well as the theology of the Reformation. The fact that they were in the tradition of the Reformers did not prevent them from knowing thoroughly scholastic theology, from discussing and refuting it, or even accepting it when possible. All this makes classical orthodoxy one of the great events in the history of Christian thought.[13]
    source

    check out the author

    #JVF
    #Word
    #Next!

    Like

  68. MichaelTX: Protestants only change when they understand differently.

    This is one of the sticky spots in conversation between Catholics and Protestants. I would also say that Catholics change when they understand differently.

    Consider what happens if a Catholic reads Romans 4 and understands Paul to be saying that we are justified by faith apart from works, so that the Catholic system of sacramental grace is not what the Bible teaches.

    What happens to that Catholic then?

    * He might remain within the RC Church, but no longer believe its teaching, OR
    * He might leave the RC Church.

    But in either case, he has changed.

    Like

  69. Good morning Brandon, I’m doing pretty well. I need to discipline myself and stay off of here though. I have work due by midnight! 🙂

    I hope you and your young family are well. I have a personal question if you don’t mind. Did you attend Providence Christian College that was located in Ontario? My daughter (28yrs) was invited to go there but she chose UCR because it had both a Classics Dept. and French. I know it has grown and expanded offered disciplines, but if you did do your undergraduate studies there you must have been the first class to graduate.
    It turned out to be a very great school. I met Gideon Strauss of The Center for Public Justice through it, and was excited to hear that the Reformed actually believed in “doing” social justice. That was my first introduction to Kuyperian Reform.
    Oh, and I tried to find you about a year ago when I visited a Presbyterian church in Fullerton that you preached at, but I think you were only a visiting preacher at that time. I had just been received into the Catholic Church but I was looking for a friendly face, and a place where my family and I could possibly worship together. I had deduced from yours and Dr. Cross’s mutually respectful acquaintance, that I would meet kind acceptance from you, even though you could not help but disagree with me.

    Well, I need to scoot! Have a great Friday, friends!
    Susan

    ” The point I’m making is that the theological vocabulary and specification for alien righteousness and transubstantiation were “novums” at different points in history.”

    I we could both be shown how the points now in contest were always there in church belief and practice always being understood even if they were not brought to the forefront, then we would have agreement. But that is exactly what is in dispute. If Luther brings it to the forefront and no one recognizes his vocabulary and specifications are resembling what was always there, it is a theological novum in the sense not analogous to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
    I don’t think the beliefs or practices are dependent on the vocabulary, but I do think that once the vocabulary is elucidated then there is no historical or scientific reason to reject is based on that elucidation, unless the elucidation failed to adequately express the belief or practice.

    So in one sense, Aquinas and Luther introduced theological “novums.”

    That does not mean, however, that they do not have parallel or precedent before the “novum.” Thus, simply because McGrath labels the doctrine of alien righteousness as a novum, it does not mean that McGrath believes that it is not a legitimate extension of the via moderna.

    Like

  70. Andrew,

    “What do your children think of having their household torn apart by the reformation? Do they go to all those services together as well, or are they mixed (some go to some services, others to others). I imagine if I had something like that in my household, my children would be very confused. I would be working diligently and frequenlty to put an end to such disruption in the understanding of the Xtian religion in my household, for the souls under my care. Wow, what a rough situation. Curious for your thoughts is all, no need to answer”

    You are a good soul:) You get it and you are compassionate. Cuddle your little ones and show them God’s love, it’s a tough world full of confusion and suffering. Andrew, pray for me as I pray for you.

    Like

  71. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
    Mermaid, so what happens when conflicts are never settled in Roman Catholicism vd, t doesn’t accept dogma and he’s still there. Ireland votes for gay marriage and Pope Francis — who is hardly reticent — doesn’t say anything.

    This is like being American. How do you get out?

    Ireland is a country. The church’s position is well-known; comment is unnecessary–and at this point unhelpful. Like most of Europe, it has come to think of itself as post-Christian.

    http://americamagazine.org/issue/post-catholic-ireland

    However, both the Church of Scotland and the PCUSA are Presbyterian churches. They have also gone for gay marriage. Even a sophist knows the difference between a country and a church.

    Like

  72. Brandon,

    Oops, sorry. The format was all messed up, and included your question at the end. Let me correct that:

    ” The point I’m making is that the theological vocabulary and specification for alien righteousness and transubstantiation were “novums” at different points in history.”

    My answer- If we could both be shown how the points now in contest were always there in church belief and practice always being understood even if they were not brought to the forefront, then we would have agreement. But that is exactly what is in dispute. If Luther brings it to the forefront and no one recognizes his vocabulary and specifications are resembling what was always there, it is a theological novum in the sense not analogous to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
    I don’t think the beliefs or practices are dependent on the vocabulary, but I do think that once the vocabulary is elucidated then there is no historical or scientific reason to reject is based on that elucidation, unless the elucidation failed to adequately express the belief or practice.

    “That does not mean, however, that they do not have parallel or precedent before the “novum.” Thus, simply because McGrath labels the doctrine of alien righteousness as a novum, it does not mean that McGrath believes that it is not a legitimate extension of the via moderna.”

    My answer- Okay, yes I agree that McGrath may not be saying it in the sense that it should be used, so that we could have clarity about what the phrase actually means and avoid discombobulation. Since he remain Protestant, I would think that he does mean it in the way you’ve described. But it still not a satisfying analysis of what the church actually did believe.

    Like

  73. Susan,

    What do you think that given the personal nature of your struggles, you should stop posting about your beliefs online in a protestant blog?

    All about me, you should know I was settled in my faith several years before I found out people blogged on theology. SInce finidng out about in 2012, I was sharing private e-mails for 3 years over religious matters with a man about 30 years older than me, a Tillich disciple. It seems you are still sorting things out, again, I think you need to stop, or at least stay in catholic blogs for a while. My advice only, take it or leave it.

    Take care.

    Like

  74. Susan,

    If you don’t buy McGrath’s line of argument, that’s cool. I just wanted to make sure that McGrath’s point isn’t overextended or misused. I’m not arguing that it supports the Protestant position, either. I’m just clarifying the meaning behind McGrath’s statement.

    Like

  75. Jeff,
    Basically agreed. There should be a period of discernment before such a radical change happens, but the person of truth at least leaves the Catholic Church once he has done all he can to understand the Churches teaching on it and “he” believes it to be teaching falsehood. The person of truth will not remain a confessing Catholic while being at heart a non-Catholic. The problem is that “he” can still be wrong in his understanding he is merely a man. The Scriptures are of God and from the Tradition of the Church which he is now rejecting as false and leaving. It will be down hill inevitably if he is wrong. No matter if it is in his life time or in the generations to come. That is my thoughts on it.

    Like

  76. Minnesota Files Criminal Charges Against Archdiocese Over Handling of Sex Abuse

    Prosecutors in Minnesota filed criminal charges on Friday against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, accusing church leaders of mishandling repeated complaints of sexual abuse by a priest.

    The charges and accompanying civil petition, announced by the Ramsey County prosecutor, John J. Choi, are a sweeping condemnation of the archdiocese and how its leaders have handled sex abuse allegations.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/us/catholic-archdiocese-in-minnesota-charged-over-sex-abuse-by-priest.html?emc=edit_na_20150605

    Like

  77. Susan: My answer- Okay, yes I agree that McGrath may not be saying it in the sense that it should be used, so that we could have clarity about what the phrase actually means and avoid discombobulation. Since he remain Protestant, I would think that he does mean it in the way you’ve described. But it still not a satisfying analysis of what the church actually did believe.

    Dan: The simple answer is that in the very early 16th century, the Church accommodated, and taught at its Universities, more than one system of belief about salvation. Maybe that isn’t very satisfying.

    Like

  78. MTX: The person of truth will not remain a confessing Catholic while being at heart a non-Catholic.

    C’mon… you know better than that…. I’d guess 95% of those in my life couldn’t care less about anything about that faith than they were born into it, and reserve the right to play that card when it is convenient, and then couldn’t care less any more.

    Look at the slipshod answers constantly put on here by others who make a claim and seem to care about it….

    Like

  79. Erik,
    Don’t know the details, but praise God if it is a good thing being done. Put them in jail and stripe the of their office if they did it wrong. I don’t know enough to judge myself.

    Like

  80. kent,
    I’d guess 95% of those in my life couldn’t care less about anything about that faith than they were born into it, and reserve the right to play that card when it is convenient, and then couldn’t care less any more. those are not the “person of truth” I was talking about. Those are people who “couldn’t care less”. Just like you said.

    Like

  81. I know people who confronted the molesting priests and they were mocked and laughed at by those who should have turned them in for criminal charges immediately.

    Ho ho hee hee move them on to another flock to predate upon, fresh lamb every night.

    Like

  82. God is just! “To who much is given much is required.” “Vengeance is Mine says the Lord. I will repay.” “The magistrate is not given the sword for no reason.”
    I am of the opinion the child molesters be at the top of the capital punishment list. I have no sympathy for such crime.

    Like

  83. Webster:

    “…Calvin himself. He was a proud, celebrity pastor who set up his little kingdom in Geneva.”
    _______________
    It’s words like these that verify you are a propagandist who should not be taken seriously. Whatever you think of his theology, Calvin was a man who, by temperament, simply wanted to be a quiet scholar. Instead, being begged to come back to Geneva, he worked tirelessly and made as little of himself as could be possible for a man so brilliant. And he insisted on having an unmarked grave; alas, no one can exhume his body and parade it through Protestant worship services.

    Here are words from someone who would know better than you.

    FLORIMOND DE RÆMOND (1540–1602).
    Counseiller du Roy au Parlement de Bordeaux. Roman Catholic.

    From his L’histoire de la naissanse, progrez, et decadence de l’hérésie de ce siècle, divisé en huit livres, dedié à nôtre saint Père le Pape Paul cinquième. Paris, 1605. bk. VII. ch. 10.

    “Calvin had morals better regulated and settled than N., and shewed from early youth that he did not allow himself to be carried away by the pleasures of sense (plaisirs de la chair et du ventre) … With a dry and attenuated body, he always possessed a fresh and vigorous intellect, ready in reply, bold in attack; even in his youth a great faster, either on account of his health, and to allay the headaches with which he was continually afflicted, or in order to have his mind more disencumbered for the purposes of writing, studying, and improving his memory. Calvin spoke little; what he said were serious and impressive words (et n’estoit que propos serieux et qui portoyent coup); he never appeared in company, and always led a retired life. He had scarcely his equal; for during twenty-three years that he retained possession of the bishopric (l’evesché) of Geneva, he preached every day, and often twice on Sundays. He lectured on theology three times a week; and every Friday he entered into a conference which he called the Congregation. His remaining hours were employed in composition, and answering the letters which came to him as to a sovereign pontiff from all parts of heretical Christendom (qui arrivoyent à luy de toute la Chrétienté hérétique, comme au Souveraine Pontife)….
    “Calvin had a brilliancy of spirit, a subtlety of judgment, a grand memory, an eminent erudition, and the power of graceful diction…. No man of all those who preceded him has surpassed him in style, and few since have attained that beauty and facility of language which he possessed.”

    Like

  84. Erik,

    “Luther & Calvin thought like Aquinas.”

    Yes, I totally think of Luther and Calvin when reading statements like:

    “Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff….Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff: “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: “That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you”: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.”

    “This prohibition and sentence of the council was intended for private individuals, who have no business to decide matters of faith: for this decision of the general council did not take away from a subsequent council the power of drawing up a new edition of the symbol, containing not indeed a new faith, but the same faith with greater explicitness. For every council has taken into account that a subsequent council would expound matters more fully than the preceding council, if this became necessary through some heresy arising. Consequently this belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff, by whose authority the council is convoked, and its decision confirmed. ”

    “The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord’s promise to His disciples: “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.” Now the symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective.”

    “Hence it is not human knowledge, but the Divine truth that is the rule of faith: and if any of the learned stray from this rule, he does not harm the faith of the simple ones, who think that the learned believe aright; unless the simple hold obstinately to their individual errors, against the faith of the universal Church, which cannot err, since Our Lord said: “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not.””

    “The various conclusions of a science have their respective means of demonstration, one of which may be known without another, so that we may know some conclusions of a science without knowing the others. On the other hand faith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith.”

    “Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”

    Like

  85. Clete,

    “The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord’s promise to His disciples: “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.” Now the symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective.”

    You agree with that?

    No qualifier about only the Pope speaking ex-cathedra.

    Like

  86. Erik,
    Not exactly sure what you mean, but no priest nor his office given him by Christ is honored by not expecting him to live according to truth and love. They should teach and expect no less of us as well.

    Like

  87. Erik,

    You’ll have to excuse Clete. He thinks that “thinking like Aquinas” means “agreeing with absolutely everything Aquinas ever said.”

    Like

  88. Erik Charter
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
    Clete,

    “The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord’s promise to His disciples: “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.” Now the symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective.”

    You agree with that?

    No qualifier about only the Pope speaking ex-cathedra.

    The key word is “universal” church. Any particular pope can err. This theology-by-quote slinging really sucks. You guys are either confused or outright lying on this subject. Either way, there is no excuse for these falsehoods to continue. You owe it to God and to the truth to educate yourselves.

    “There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.33, a.4)

    The Holy Spirit guides the universal church, not just the Pope as an individual.

    See also Pope Paul VI

    the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.

    Like

  89. Erik,

    “You agree with that?”

    Yes – even Tom the non-RC can understand why. It is not shocking to think and see that Aquinas actually held to that crazy STM-triad relationship RCism affirms – who woulda thunk it?

    Like

  90. Tom,

    Thanks for posting three so far today (I’m supposed to stop counting..):

    TVD
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    TVD
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    TVD
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    I’d give it a rest if I were you. Let someone younger fight with us protestants. For us, it’s simply #samestuffdifferentday, no one really listens to someone who doesn’t want to self identify what he/she believes. For all we know, you belong to some jedi religion, we don’t need any more star wars, just ask my BFF Michael. Grace and peace:

    Darryl Hart once asked people who like to comment at his blog to show restraint by limiting their comments. Right now, there is a thread of over 700 comments of which I have contributed many to, in my free time.

    I get why some people comment a lot at Darryl’s blog – they are new to it, and there’s a lot of learning. However, for the people who have been there long, why do they feel the need to keep commenting? Are they not receiving the kind of theological discussion and theological intellectual stimulation in their own locales (read: particular congregations)?

    I welcome anyone to explain to me why people keep commenting out there over and over and over. I’m not mad, and I am a horrible offender, of posting too many comments myself. But I mostly try to defend, I’m not out to change or affect what Darryl is doing, at least on my better days. I have a little bit of a TKNY bent to me, admittedly, read the comments at that link to see what I mean. I’ve written enough, anyone want to help me, if I have been clear in expressing what flummoxes me at present? Comments open, no pressure. Grace and peace.

    – See more at: http://adbuckingham.com/grace-and-peace/#sthash.ZQYctLlH.dpuf

    Like

  91. Tom & Clete,

    So where do you stand on the Callers telling us that the Pope is the difference maker / tie breaker/ principled-means-bearer that makes Catholicism the bestest form of Christianity out there?

    Is their exuberance warranted or overblown?

    Like

  92. Erik,

    “So where do you stand on the Callers telling us that the Pope is the difference maker / tie breaker/ principled-means-bearer that makes Catholicism the bestest form of Christianity out there?”

    Earlier you said:
    “The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord’s promise to His disciples: “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.” Now the symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective.”

    You agree with that?”

    Now notice in the other citations I presented, Aquinas affirms the unique authority of the pope. There is no contradiction or tension in the citation you plucked and the others (and so there’s no tension with CtC’s sentiment either). Perhaps you’ve bought into the sola-Magisterium caricature – there’s a reason it’s called the STM-triad and not Sola-M. The pope is a difference maker. Scripture is a difference maker. Tradition (“universal church”) is a difference maker. Their authority is intended to and only functions properly in tandem with each other.

    Like

  93. Good post< by Dreher about not making the church an idol.

    In a subsequent post on the BenOp, he talks about why social conservatives keep losing the culture war. He suggests that their commitment to classical liberalism is the problem:

    The thing that many, many social and religious conservatives fail to understand is that things like same-sex marriage, polyamory, transgender, are not perversions of the classical liberal principles on which America was founded, but are logical extensions of them.

    Thinking back to his prior post on how the church becomes an idol that obscures Christ for a lot of people, I wonder how much of that is just a logical extension of the sacramental system that evolved to maintain temporal power?

    Like

  94. Erik Charter
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
    You guys both seem a little underwhelmed at the Pope’s audacity.

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/the-audacity-of-pope/

    It’s a very persuasive article. You don’t appear to have read it. You might not like Catholicism’s answer to the question, but Protestantism is self-refuting in its purposeful dodging of it.

    But this proposal, too, does not suffice to allay the seriousness of the questions involved. Perspicuous the Bible may be; but that isn’t to say everyone understands it perspicuously. Sufficient the Scriptures may be, in some good sense; but that isn’t to say each reader is a sufficient interpreter unto himself. Inerrant the Bible may be; yet that isn’t to say that any true believer unerringly “gets” what it says. And any tradition must of course be subject to Scripture – but none can pretend that only Catholics have a “tradition” to which their Scriptural understanding pays heed.

    Ultimately, in this instance, the Protestant approach leaves us with fallible humans who are supposed to rightly understand what the Scriptures mean – and keep the Church running on course – on their own. To be sure, the Holy Spirit is thought to be involved in some way; but it’s never made entirely clear what this way is. What is clear, however, is that the Holy Spirit doesn’t infallibly guide anybody about this stuff, since that would be to take the Catholic (and therefore man-exalting) position.

    But what follows inevitably is this: to the extent we have full trust and confidence in our own ability to understand Scripture, or in the deliverances of our theological tradition, to that extent we exalt our ability to figure things out for ourselves – with no guarantee that the Spirit will protect us from error.

    Like

  95. Erik,

    SF is a component of Tradition (“common life, teaching, worship of the church handed down the generations”). When the congregation rose up during Nestorius’ Christmas homily that kicked off the controversy, or when the feast of the Assumption was universally practiced east and west for over a millennium before the definition, that was the SF acting.
    And note in the wiki article Benedict’s words:
    “It is certainly not a kind of public ecclesial opinion, and invoking it in order to contest the teachings of the Magisterium would be unthinkable, since the sensus fidei cannot be authentically developed in believers, except to the extent in which they fully participate in the life of the Church, and this demands responsible adherence to the Magisterium, to the deposit of faith”

    Again, STM authorities operating together, not in vacuums.

    Like

  96. Erik Charter
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 6:01 pm | Permalink
    Clete,

    Good to see you back and well rested!

    Club Med?

    LOL

    Like

  97. But this proposal, too, does not suffice to allay the seriousness of the questions involved. Perspicuous the Bible may be; but that isn’t to say everyone understands it perspicuously. Sufficient the Scriptures may be, in some good sense; but that isn’t to say each reader is a sufficient interpreter unto himself. Inerrant the Bible may be; yet that isn’t to say that any true believer unerringly “gets” what it says. And any tradition must of course be subject to Scripture – but none can pretend that only Catholics have a “tradition” to which their Scriptural understanding pays heed.

    That’s right. The magisterial reformers were not reconstructionists. We value tradition (as evidenced by the citations at the deliberations over the WCF), but we think that tradition must be judged against scripture. Even long standing traditions may be wrong.

    Ultimately, in this instance, the Protestant approach leaves us with fallible humans who are supposed to rightly understand what the Scriptures mean – and keep the Church running on course – on their own. To be sure, the Holy Spirit is thought to be involved in some way; but it’s never made entirely clear what this way is. What is clear, however, is that the Holy Spirit doesn’t infallibly guide anybody about this stuff, since that would be to take the Catholic (and therefore man-exalting) position.

    1) We protestants believe that the word of God is alive and active. This stands in stark contrast to Bryan Cross’s statement that the Bible is a dead letter (see his essay on solo/sola).
    2) The spirit blows where he may, why is a mechanism for how he guides us in truth necessary?
    3) The Holy spirit does infallibly guide everybody, but due to indwelling sin, we reject that guidance to varying degrees. What we reject is that the authority of the apostle’s successors (the overseers/bishops/elders) exceeds what the NT prescribes.

    But what follows inevitably is this: to the extent we have full trust and confidence in our own ability to understand Scripture, or in the deliverances of our theological tradition, to that extent we exalt our ability to figure things out for ourselves – with no guarantee that the Spirit will protect us from error.

    No protestant would say that we have full trust and confidence in our own ability to understand scripture (lean not on your own understanding and all that) – rather we believe that the scripture is alive and active and the Holy Spirit guides our understanding. Insofar as we get it wrong, we get it wrong because we are sinful.

    It seems to me that we are divided over the supernatural character of the scriptures (Bryan’s dead letter versus the apostolic understanding of the scriptures as alive and active).

    Like

  98. MichaelTX, except that Paul judged Peter, and Paul tells us other places to judge, and does some of his own.

    Also, except that your church used to do plenty of judging. Index of Books?

    Like

  99. Mermaid, what Muddy said. Your decision to leave Protestantism has to be one of the most uninformed I’ve seen. And I’ve seen Susan’s reasons.

    At least, vd, t get his antagonism honestly.

    Like

  100. And besides, the Inquisition.

    Darryl, learn from the real trolls, like AB here.

    AB
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 7:01 pm | Permalink
    Erik,

    Why so much wikipedia in this thread?

    You need more youtube.

    #HowIFeelWhenDGHEntersOurComboxToCorrectUs
    #Who’sNext?”

    Next.

    Like

  101. Tom, bearded spock man, you are too cute, avatar and all.

    You remind of the Q creature, mariachi band, when you show up.

    You know you can call me a troll or much worse, as I’ve been called, it has no effect on protestants. Martin Luther is our spiritual father. Learn to insult better, my friend.

    Peace, yo.

    Like

  102. Yes, Martin Luther, Head Troll. If you keep hitting your own religion below the belt like this, Darryl’s gonna need a truss.

    Next.

    Like

  103. TVD,

    Why do you presume to speak for Darryl?

    DGH and I get along quite well, we talk about our cats, so please don’t presume to think I am bothering him or this blog without him actually saying it.

    Again, people don’t care what a non-religionist has to say so much around here, you have to try extra hard, seeing as you are too afraid to tell us what your leanings are. Try harder, yo!

    Trolling is and trolling does, Gump.

    #gotochurch

    Like

  104. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm | Permalink
    Mermaid, what Muddy said. Your decision to leave Protestantism has to be one of the most uninformed I’ve seen. And I’ve seen Susan’s reasons.

    At least, vd, t get his antagonism honestly.

    She’s a better Christian than you are, Butch. In thought, word, and deed. And you can stuff that up your pipe. 😉

    Like

  105. vd, c, yes, for you doctrine of church always trumps doctrine of salvation, except as we now know salvation is outside the church. Why? the church said.

    Like

  106. vd, c, how can Scripture be a difference maker since the real difference maker, the magisterium, determines what Scripture means? The church does trump Scripture on your side of the Tiber all the time. Think Mary.

    Like

  107. Like I said, church trumps scripture because we can’t trust ourselves but have to trust the infallible interpreter.

    to the extent we have full trust and confidence in our own ability to understand Scripture, or in the deliverances of our theological tradition, to that extent we exalt our ability to figure things out for ourselves – with no guarantee that the Spirit will protect us from error.

    That’s why lay RC’s judging the bishops is so unseemly – even commenting on an encyclical before it’s released. Where’s the submission? Where’s the order? Where’s the unity?

    Like

  108. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, you’re not a good Christian.

    No doubt, Darryl, but what you did with Mrs. Webfoot isn’t right before God or man. “Faith working through love.” She’s got it, you’re missing it, brother.

    Like

  109. Thank you, Tom. Justification by faith working through love. That sums up Pauline understanding of justification by faith. It’s all that matters.

    My faith teaches me to love D.G. Hart and accept him as my brother, and all his friends as well in the same way. I really don’t want to be friends, but I do want them as brothers. It is what my Mother wants. …Yes, I mean my Mother, the Church.

    OTOH, Tom is my friend and my brother.

    “For everyone is to have faith and few can be learned, and their learning doesn’t give them a superior kind of faith. Everyone is to run: and few are road sweepers.”

    – G.E.M. Anscombe

    Like

  110. Darryl,

    “Susan, sorry to hear you’re divided. Really.”

    That’s nice of you, thanks.

    “But then maybe you don’t bang the drum about unity so much?”

    I only call them as I see them. I can stay of this blog though and you don’t have to hear me.

    ~Susan

    Like

  111. D.G. Hart,
    I know this is a hard time for you. Some of your best and brightest have left you and gone Home to the Catholic Church. They were and are well informed, unlike yours truly. It must hurt. It must not be easy.

    I am not entirely uninformed, but I am informed enough.

    Don’t know what to say. You and this group are in my prayers. You love your church.

    Take care, brother,
    Mrs. Webfoot

    Like

  112. Justification by faith working through love. That sums up Pauline understanding of justification by faith. It’s all that matters.

    That’s not what your confessions say,

    Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

    I’m pretty sure the whole of the Catholic faith is not “Justification by faith working through love.” but I will happily stand corrected if I mistaken.

    Like

  113. MtX, that’s erik for ya

    MWF, you are in cage phase. Meet jason stellman. He could help you where you are at. You have it bad.

    Like

  114. sdb,
    here is some of Benedict’s word: “For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true[speaking of the insertion in Rom 5], if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).”
    All the talk can be read here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119.html

    AB,
    Liberal Lutherans don’t speak for me either, but maybe reading the intro which is written by both sides and the RC part is worth reading if you wish to have a greater understanding of the RC point of view before it is dismissed.

    Like

  115. Darryl,

    “vd, c, how can Scripture be a difference maker since the real difference maker, the magisterium, determines what Scripture means? The church does trump Scripture on your side of the Tiber all the time. Think Mary.”

    So Scripture was eviscerated of all authority by Christ and the Apostles when they authoritatively interpreted it right? And you interpreting Scripture to teach against Marian doctrines does not entail it actually does.

    “Like I said, church trumps scripture because we can’t trust ourselves but have to trust the infallible interpreter”

    Christ and the Apostles trumped Scripture I guess.

    “That’s why lay RC’s judging the bishops is so unseemly – even commenting on an encyclical before it’s released. Where’s the submission? Where’s the order?”

    This casts the RC position as entailing blind robotic obedience to their local priest/bishop. This also casts the sensus fidelium as being superfluous or nonsensical. Neither is the case.

    Like

  116. MTX, Fesko covers the joint declaration in the book I keep talking about.

    You know, the one I have talked about for about 3 years since finding the blogs?

    Like

  117. I’ll scan the pages tonight. You are probably the best roman catholic interlocutor I’ve met here at Oldlife, Michael. It’d be good to share notes and discuss my thoughts on justification. Tom Van Dyke thinks it too boring, he doesn’t understand our religion

    Grace and peace.

    #QueTomsAdHom

    Like

  118. AB, I have respect for Reformed individuals who take their faith seriously and seek to live the life of faith in their family and culture. The OPC seems like a respectable communion, though of course we have come to different conclusions on several things at this point. I believe both you and the OPC seeks to love God and our neighbors. Thank you for your words.

    Like

  119. Mainly we provide the counter to CalledToCommuion here at OLTS.

    We are not seeking to convert anyone to Calvinism. If someone does, well great. But we don’t care about numbers. Even so, we in the OPC have over 1 million more presby brothers as general assembly voted to join fraternally with the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, which has over a million members.

    Check out @oldlife’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/oldlife/status/606978419977363457?s=09

    These prot/cath polemics get tiresome, most don’t have the stomach for it. So again, we are here just to provide another voice along side CtC. We are not at war, they make war with us. Like TVD, Susan, and MWF, and all their triumphalism. We instead just endure their jabs and adhoms.

    Grace and peace.

    Like

  120. Mtx, I sent you Zaspel scans on canon as I recall. I guess it didn’t have the intended effect 😛

    No matter. Warfield rocks. Here to serve. You know where to find us.

    Like

  121. Clete,

    Christ and the Apostles trumped Scripture I guess.

    Equivocation. The Words of Christ and the Apostles are Scripture. When the words of the Magisterium are canonized as having the same infallible authority and inspiration then we can talk.

    Your position is inconsistent. You’d be better off as a Mormon. At least they claim the words of their prophets are inspired in the same way. They have authority and inspiration. You have authority without inspiration, and an ever fluid canon of what is infallible and what is not to boot.

    Like

  122. MichaelTX, I get that you can sort through any number of documents and find Roman Catholic truth. But that’s like your testimony. For some reason, most of the Roman Catholics who identify as such don’t see or know that truth.

    That’s a problem, right? Why do you think the problem exists?

    Like

  123. vd, c, perhaps you’ve heard that Scripture interprets Scripture. The NT interprets the OT (though your guys aren’t hearing Hebrews).

    Now you’re going to tell us that the bishops interpret Scripture in the same way that Jesus and Paul interpret the OT.

    Like I say, this is the church trumping Scripture because papal teachings are not Scripture.

    Like I say, this is new revelation. Think Quran and Boom of Mormon.

    Like

  124. Hart,
    “For some reason, most of the Roman Catholics who identify as such don’t see or know that truth.

    That’s a problem, right? “
    Yes that is a problem.
    Why do you think the problem exists?
    SIN

    Like

  125. MichaelTX, way too easy.

    Once upon a time, Roman Catholics were known for paying, praying, and obeying. Sin didn’t exist then?

    Or perhaps the bishops have become neglectful because doctrine really doesn’t matter.

    Like

  126. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 5, 2015 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, you’re not a good Christian.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted June 6, 2015 at 10:21 am | Permalink
    vd, t, who are you to judge?

    Grow up, Butch. Matthew 22:35-40. Mock that.

    Like

  127. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 6, 2015 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
    Index of Books.

    Changing the subject, and it was abolished 50 years ago. Your act is moldy, Darryl, and you can’t build a religion on trashing someone else’s.

    The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
    –Gal 5:6

    Timeless. Stop the mocking and try it.

    Like

  128. Belief or Nonbelief?, the written debate between Umberto Eco and Cardinal Martini, was a hell of a read. Martini wrote like a mainliner, albeit a well-educated one, and Eco with his usual style demolished him, gently.

    If memory serves the introduction recommended My Dinner With Andre by way of comparing the dialogue with that film. I bought it based solely on that and couldn’t get more than 20 minutes into it. If anyone liked that they’d lose sleep over the book.

    Like

  129. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 6, 2015 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
    Cardinal Martini.

    Hey look, a squirrel!

    You must think your Old Life faithful are fools, Darryl. I’m starting to think you’re right. 😉

    Like

  130. I loved that film! Really like Wallace Shawn.

    “Things don’t affect people the way they used to. I mean it may very well be that 10 years from now people will pay $10,000 in cash to be castrated just in order to be affected by *something*.”

    Prophetic. Some people are cutting themselves just to feel, “something”. It’s a culture of death and lacking Christian hope.

    Like

  131. Susan,

    If you liked “My Dinner With Andre” check out “The Trip” and “The Trip to Italy”. Basically the same concept, but way funnier.

    Also – The films of Eric Rohmer. Talky and enjoyable.

    Like

  132. Darryl,

    “vd, c, perhaps you’ve heard that Scripture interprets Scripture. The NT interprets the OT (though your guys aren’t hearing Hebrews).”

    So each book of your 66 book canon is authoritative even as each book is interpreted by the others and each book’s authority is intended to and cannot function properly without the others. So they are parallel authorities that dont trump each other. Ding ding ding.

    “Now you’re going to tell us that the bishops interpret Scripture in the same way that Jesus and Paul interpret the OT.”

    I am telling you the magisterium has apostolic authority to give binding and normative and definitive teaching and interpretation. Scriptural authority is not sidelined by mere virtue of that fact as you posit.

    “Like I say, this is the church trumping Scripture because papal teachings are not Scripture.”

    Nice apologetic for non believing NT jews.

    “Like I say, this is new revelation.”

    Apostolic authority does not entail new revelation. You are arguing it is literally impossible for such authority to be given without also necessitating ongoing revelation.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s