What if popes sounded like this?
The Catholic Church then is, and always will be, violent and intransigent when the rights of God are in question. She will be absolutely ruthless, for example, towards heresy, for heresy affects not personal matters on which Charity may yield, but a Divine right on which there must be no yielding. Yet, simultaneously, she will be infinitely kind towards the heretic, since a thousand human motives and circumstances may come in and modify his responsibility. At a word of repentance she will readmit his person into her treasury of souls, but not his heresy into her treasury of wisdom; she will strike his name eagerly and freely from her black list of the rebellious, but not his book from the pages of her Index.
Was Leo XIII as jealous of God’s rights when it came to the Word of God?
The Church aims, not at making a show, but at doing a work. She regards this world, and all that is in it, as a mere shadow, as dust and ashes, compared with the value of one single soul. She holds that, unless she can, in her own way, do good to souls, it is no use her doing anything; she holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse. She considers the action of this world and the action of the soul simply incommensurate, viewed in their respective spheres; she would rather save the soul of one single wild bandit of Calabria, or whining beggar of Palermo, than draw a hundred lines of railroad through the length and breadth of Italy, or carry out a sanitary reform, in its fullest details, in every city of Sicily, except so far as these great national works tended to some spiritual good beyond them.
That doesn’t sound like a Social Gospel. But it does sound like a view of sin that would drive you to confession — forget weekly or, ahem, weakly — but daily. Sort of like what Luther experienced when he considered his sins and how to atone for them.
But from most of the “converts” I read, my soul is not in peril by remaining outside the Roman Catholic Church. If I “convert,” I get an upgrade. But I’m not apparently in danger of going to hell.
Old Life 
Upgrade — more legroom, better snacks and drinks. And use of Susan’s rainbow-emitting unicorn now and then
LikeLike
Hart,
I will with no hesitation say it is quite possible you can be sacrificing your salvation. The problem is I am not the one who knows this. The things to be known are only knowledgeable to you and God or someone whom you are willing to be honest with the discernment of it(like a priest or knowledgeable spiritual director). Questions like these would help one know: Do you believe the Catholic Church could be Christ’s Church and are avoiding learning what it truly teaches and how to know it? Do you believe your Reformed beliefs could be wrong in some aspects but are avoiding testing them? Do you respect the position you have with men over the position you have in honesty toward God? Do you distract yourself with things to avoid thinking of things regarding questions you have for God?
I am sure I could think of other questions but I think questions such as these would help one know whether they are facing God with honesty and trust regarding the Catholic Church and her claims, true or false. To cut off ones communication with Truth is to reject God. This is irrelevant to whether this leads to the Catholic Church or not. What is relevant is openness to God and His truth. To reject Him now is to not want Him forever. This is the road to hell and its present destination. To die in that state makes the decision irrevocable.
God bless+,
Michael
LikeLike
BTW Hart,
“Paradoxes of Catholism” by Robert Hugh Benson, which was quoted in the Rorate Caeli post, is my favorite Catholic book.It is 99 cents on Amazon. Free in other places.
LikeLike
MichaelTX, this is a rather pompous post. Nothing I’ve ever read on this blog would lead me to the conclusion that Dr Hart is rejecting God. He may reject portions of Catholic dogma but that is only because it may conflict with Holy Scripture, which after all is the only source of Truth concerning God, ourselves and how we as sinful beings may find peace with God: by grace alone, through faith alone – the very gift of God, in Christ alone.
LikeLike
We topple the pope and everything that is built upon our good works, because it is all built on a rotten flimsy foundation. The whole thing is nothing but deceitful lies and hypocrisy
He is the Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ, because the pope will not let Christians be saved without his authority (which amounts to nothing, since it is not ordered or commanded by God). This is precisely what St. Paul calls ―setting oneself over God and against God. Neither the Turks nor the Tartars, despite being great enemies of the Christians, do any such thing. They allow whoever desires it to have faith in Christ, and they receive physical tribute and obedience from the Christians.
That the Mass under the papacy has to be the greatest and most terrible abomination. It has been the supreme and most precious of all the various papal idolatries. For it is held that this sacrifice or work of the Mass (even when performed by a rotten scoundrel) delivers people from sin both here in this life and beyond in purgatory, even though the Lamb of God alone should and must do this
Click to access The%20Smalcald%20Articles%20and%20the%20Treatise.pdf
LikeLike
Mark Mcculley
Posted July 21, 2015 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
We topple the pope and everything that is built upon our good works, because it is all built on a rotten flimsy foundation. The whole thing is nothing but deceitful lies and hypocrisy
He is the Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ
Sweet.
But for the record, “you” toppled nothing. The Reformation just set up a thousand popes of its own.
LikeLike
@Michael
I went to RCIA for two sessions last fall. Following that experience, I’m quite confident that the RCC is not exclusively Christ’s Church. Otherwise, Christ is in trouble.
During my second RCIA session, we discussed the Nicene Creed. It was clear that the instructor had no clue concerning half of the averments of the Creed. The class contained a Hindu woman who was joining the Church so that she and her Catholic live-in boyfriend could get married in the parish sanctuary. The Hindu woman asked something along the lines of, “Do you really need to believe this to be Catholic?” The instructor responded something along the lines of, “No, you just need to believe in the institutional merit of the Church and the Church will have faith on your behalf.” As I walked out of class that night, I never felt closer to the spirit of Martin Luther.
LikeLike
@Mark
My Dutch grandmother believed that the Pope was an anti-Christ, along with Billy Graham.
LikeLike
David Palmer,
That post was in no way intended to be pompous. It was intended to show Hart what he felt no Catholics were doing. Tell the truth of the Catholic faith. In a Catholic understanding of the faith, if one willfully with full knowledge rejects the Church of Christ, he sacrifices his/her salvation. I say very clearly I could not know this in regards to his situation. I just gave him some ways he could think on this himself. If it is possible for him though it is possible for me, too. I have not been dishonest to him. Which he clearly feels either other are not being honest or they do not believe the historic Catholic faith. I was just informing him I am niether. I do not believe Hart would feel less of me for it. Any Catholic who will not admit someone can reject God by rejecting His bride with full knowledge is sacrificing their own salvation.
But from most of the “converts” I read, my soul is not in peril by remaining outside the Roman Catholic Church. If I “convert,” I get an upgrade. But I’m not apparently in danger of going to hell.
Mr. Palmer, honesty is important if we are to understand each other’s differences and common truths. I am not one of those prophets that say “Peace! Peace! when there is no peace”. I believe what has been historicly taught by the Christian Church. Outside of the Church is no salvation. The question the Catholic can’t know is if one is visibly outside by God’s will, trusting in Him completely, or outside by one’s own will distrusting God’s goodness and faithfulness. I hope that clarifies.
God bless,
Michael
LikeLike
Bobby,
It is a good thing the a catholc church which that RCIA teachers believes in does not exist. Teachings like that are not what we will face on judgement day. He will answer for those false teachings someday. God willing before judgement day. Martin Luther was much more Catholic than that RCIA teacher. Here is a few Passages from a document of the real magisterium not a RCIA volunteer:
I. THE FULLNESS AND DEFINITIVENESS
OF THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST
5. As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, it must be firmly believed that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (Mt 11:27); “No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him” (Jn 1:18); “For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9-10).
…7. The proper response to God’s revelation is “the obedience of faith (Rom 16:26; cf. Rom 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) by which man freely entrusts his entire self to God, offering ‘the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals’ and freely assenting to the revelation given by him”.15 Faith is a gift of grace: “in order to have faith, the grace of God must come first and give assistance; there must also be the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and gives ‘to everyone joy and ease in assenting to and believing in the truth’”.16
The obedience of faith implies acceptance of the truth of Christ’s revelation, guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself:17 “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed”.18 Faith, therefore, as “a gift of God” and as “a supernatural virtue infused by him”,19 involves a dual adherence: to God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals, out of the trust which one has in him who speaks. Thus, “we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
…10. These theses are in profound conflict with the Christian faith. The doctrine of faith must be firmly believed which proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, and he alone, is the Son and the Word of the Father. The Word, which “was in the beginning with God” (Jn 1:2) is the same as he who “became flesh” (Jn 1:14). In Jesus, “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16), “the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9). He is the “only begotten Son of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father” (Jn 1:18), his “beloved Son, in whom we have redemption… In him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him, God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself, on earth and in the heavens, making peace by the blood of his Cross” (Col 1:13-14; 19-20).
Faithful to Sacred Scripture and refuting erroneous and reductive interpretations, the First Council of Nicaea solemnly defined its faith in: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten generated from the Father, that is, from the being of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth. For us men and for our salvation, he came down and became incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day. He ascended to the heavens and shall come again to judge the living and the dead”.28 Following the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, the Council of Chalcedon also professed: “the one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man…, one in being with the Father according to the divinity and one in being with us according to the humanity…, begotten of the Father before the ages according to the divinity and, in these last days, for us and our salvation, of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, according to the humanity”.29
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
More could be quoted, but needless to say don’t believe all RCIA teachers. Show them the teaching of the Church and if they will not believe it, report them to the Church.
LikeLike
CW ,
“Upgrade — more legroom, better snacks and drinks. And use of Susan’s rainbow-emitting unicorn now and then”
🙂 At my expense even, that still made me laugh.
Sometimes you guys are really clever 😉 Don’t push it, though.
Take care.
LikeLike
I went to RCIA for two sessions last fall. Following that experience, I’m quite confident that the RCC is not exclusively Christ’s Church. Otherwise, Christ is in trouble.
The trouble is with CiNOs. Catholics-in-name-only either do not believe what the RCC teaches, or they do not practice. That’s something like 90% of US Catholics according to the stats.
On a day in which I am feeling particularly flourishing, I might be as generous and sensitive to distinctions as Michael.
But 75% of US Catholics don’t practice (weekly Mass, annual Confession and Eucharist, observe a few days of fasting). Of those who do, half profess to pollsters disagreement on points of faith.
The remainder are faithful, practicing Catholics. Fewer than 9m in the US, suggests the stats. It’s worse in several other Western countries, of course.
Many Fathers and RCC Doctors were quite ‘pessimistic’ as to the size of the number of the saved. I don’t recall reading numbers, ~ pace the JWs. ~
LikeLike
“But from most of the “converts” I read, my soul is not in peril by remaining outside the Roman Catholic Church. If I “convert,” I get an upgrade. But I’m not apparently in danger of going to hell.”
Mr. Palmer, honesty is important if we are to understand each other’s differences and common truths. I am not one of those prophets that say “Peace! Peace! when there is no peace”. I believe what has been historicly taught by the Christian Church. Outside of the Church is no salvation. The question the Catholic can’t know is if one is visibly outside by God’s will, trusting in Him completely, or outside by one’s own will distrusting God’s goodness and faithfulness. I hope that clarifies.
God bless,
Michael
“Convert” is an unhelpful word and term here. Since all Christian baptisms are recognized by the Catholic Church–and vice-versa when someone joins up with a Protestant sect, you might “convert” to Islam or Judaism or Bokononism or whathaveyou, but you cannot onvert from Christianity to Christianity.
Afterall, Luther didn’t “convert” to Lutheranism or Calvin to “Calvinism.”
Strictly speaking, Dr. Hart, actually they did, but that’s a different argument. Although you place a claim on Christianity, actually you’re a John Gresham Machenist. Own it.
LikeLike
mtx, sorry but I believe in the sufficiency of Christ, Christ alone. Yes, I believe Christ gave us the apostles and pastors to make him known and minister his word. But I don’t believe “a church” in order to get to Christ. I believe a church that proclaims Christ. And right now your church proclaims a lot more than Christ and a lot about itself that is not necessary for salvation. Heck, does your church even talk about salvation from sin?
LikeLike
vd, t, “a thousand popes”?
And you’re one of them, selecting which dogmas you believe and deciding whether or not to go church.
The thanks we get.
LikeLike
mtx, ” if one willfully with full knowledge rejects the Church of Christ, he sacrifices his/her salvation.”
So that applies to vd, t, right?
But aren’t I a separated brother? Don’t Protestants have some of the truth? Isn’t it enough to go to heaven?
How could God send people like that to hell for not being members of the Roman Catholic church?
LikeLike
vd, t, are you listening to your fellow Roman Catholics. Did you read Kevin?
The trouble is with CiNOs. Catholics-in-name-only either do not believe what the RCC teaches, or they do not practice. That’s something like 90% of US Catholics according to the stats.
LikeLike
Kevin, so what are you going to do with folks like vd, t? Why aren’t your successors to the apostles doing anything to counsel and exhort him?
LikeLike
Susan, there’s probably no one I’d enjoy running into at the grocery store more than you. But leave the unicorn in the parking lot.
LikeLike
DG – How could God send people like that to hell for not being members of the Roman Catholic church?
DG – Kevin, so what are you going to do with [non-practicing Catholics]? Why aren’t your successors to the apostles doing anything to counsel and exhort [them]?
When it comes to salvation, God in His justice and mercy will do as He pleases. I daily pray “lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.”
But we ought not have unreasonable hope. It makes us foolish, leaving us prey to our own personal weakness and the manipulations of others. It can leads us to presume God will save us despite our ignoring His more than adequate guidance as to how to live a Christian life – the sin of presumption.
As you well know, the Church recognizes the possibility that they know so little of the RCC that they are not to be blamed for not coming to it (her): “invincible ignorance.”
I do not believe this should be relied upon, or that it holds significantly for the educated leadership of non-RCC Christian bodies in the US.
As for those in a position of leadership, the Bishops try to do plenty – but some are, I humbly submit, in need of a better grounding in traditions of liturgy, history, and philosophy. I can go into more detail if you like. They take their positions seriously.
As ought we all in our own stations. How can you as a holder of positions of responsibility which involves activity in a church filled with ‘people of simple faith’ (if I can put it in a homely manner) toy with public statements which could potentially damage that faith? You are a layperson (not an RC Bishop), but are not “just a guy” – I’ll side with the Italians and have high expectations of a professor (Signor Professore).
The salvation of souls is serious business – I don’t understand how people so widely risk presumption and uncharitableness.
LikeLike
MTX: Outside of the Church is no salvation.
DGHart: mtx, sorry but I believe in the sufficiency of Christ, Christ alone. Yes, I believe Christ gave us the apostles and pastors to make him known and minister his word. But I don’t believe “a church” in order to get to Christ
Amen. But as many as received Him (JESUS), to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name John 1:12
LikeLike
mtx, when was the last time you heard a pope say anything approximating this:
#LaudatoSi
LikeLike
Hart,
Posted July 22, 2015 at 6:52 am | Permalink
mtx, ” if one willfully with full knowledge rejects the Church of Christ, he sacrifices his/her salvation.”
So that applies to vd, t, right?
But aren’t I a separated brother? Don’t Protestants have some of the truth? Isn’t it enough to go to heaven?
Yes this rejection “could” apply to TVD just like it “could” apply to you, but let’s not forget it applies to me too. I said you “could” be sacrificing your salvation. It is possible you “could” be a separated brother with vincible innocence. It is the vincible ignorance that my questions would help you discern.
mtx, sorry but I believe in the sufficiency of Christ, Christ alone. Yes, I believe Christ gave us the apostles and pastors to make him known and minister his word. But I don’t believe “a church” in order to get to Christ. I believe a church that proclaims Christ. And right now your church proclaims a lot more than Christ and a lot about itself that is not necessary for salvation. Heck, does your church even talk about salvation from sin?
Yes of course it speaks of salvation from sin. About 1/4 of the CCC is pertaining I the Decalogue. Go to any baptismal rite and hear what they are saying. I’ll post one below. Let’s not forget we read basically the same Scriptures as you every day of the week all around the world. Probably ten minutes worth every Sunday.
A Catholic is also to trust in God the Father through Christ alone by the power of the Holy Spirit alone. In this trust I am among those who do this, the Church. You believe we can do this all separated. I do not. I believe this oneness is an attribute of Christ’s Church. Maybe someday that will change for you. If you believed the OPC was Christ’s only Church, would it not be apostasy and rejection of Christ to leave or not enter it? It would be the belief of the OPC being the only valid communion of the saints of Christ that would make it not trusting in Christ to leave or not enter it. Understand?
About the teaching a lot more than Christ, you, nor anyone here, has yet to make a reasonable case from Scripture for rejecting Apostolic Traditions not contradicted by Scripture but not contained in Scripture. Until someone can, why should you condemn the Catholic for teaching and believing more than what is contained in Scripture. I will hold to my belief which you have called an oxymoron. Sola Scriptura is a manmade tradition not taught or witnessed to in the Scriptures often used to reject the authoritative Church witnessed to in the Scriptures.
Here is an small spoken explanation and prayer just after baptism from the Roman Rite of Baptism:
Then the celebrant says: God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin, given you a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and welcomed you into his holy people. He now anoints you with the chrism of salvation. As Christ was anointed Priest, Prophet, and King, so may you live always as a member of his body, sharing everlasting life.
All: Amen.
Addressing you quote from the Pope,
Here is JPII just after the CCC was released in the encyclical VERITATIS SPLENDOR. Sorry for the length. Hard to find a stopping place in JPII.
“Someone came to him…” (Mt 19:16)
6. The dialogue of Jesus with the rich young man, related in the nineteenth chapter of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, can serve as a useful guide for listening once more in a lively and direct way to his moral teaching: “Then someone came to him and said, ‘Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?’ And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. ‘He said to him, ‘Which ones?’ And Jesus said, ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ The young man said to him, ‘I have kept all these; what do I still lack?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me’ ” (Mt 19:16-21).13
7. “Then someone came to him…”. In the young man, whom Matthew’s Gospel does not name, we can recognize every person who, consciously or not, approaches Christ the Redeemer of man and questions him about morality. For the young man, the question is not so much about rules to be followed, but about the full meaning of life. This is in fact the aspiration at the heart of every human decision and action, the quiet searching and interior prompting which sets freedom in motion. This question is ultimately an appeal to the absolute Good which attracts us and beckons us; it is the echo of a call from God who is the origin and goal of man’s life. Precisely in this perspective the Second Vatican Council called for a renewal of moral theology, so that its teaching would display the lofty vocation which the faithful have received in Christ,14 the only response fully capable of satisfying the desire of the human heart.
In order to make this “encounter” with Christ possible, God willed his Church. Indeed, the Church “wishes to serve this single end: that each person may be able to find Christ, in order that Christ may walk with each person the path of life”.15– Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis
“Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?” (Mt 19:16)
8. The question which the rich young man puts to Jesus of Nazareth is one which rises from the depths of his heart. It is an essential and unavoidable question for the life of every man, for it is about the moral good which must be done, and about eternal life. The young man senses that there is a connection between moral good and the fulfilment of his own destiny. He is a devout Israelite, raised as it were in the shadow of the Law of the Lord. If he asks Jesus this question, we can presume that it is not because he is ignorant of the answer contained in the Law. It is more likely that the attractiveness of the person of Jesus had prompted within him new questions about moral good. He feels the need to draw near to the One who had begun his preaching with this new and decisive proclamation: “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the Gospel” (Mk 1:15).
People today need to turn to Christ once again in order to receive from him the answer to their questions about what is good and what is evil. Christ is the Teacher, the Risen One who has life in himself and who is always present in his Church and in the world. It is he who opens up to the faithful the book of the Scriptures and, by fully revealing the Father’s will, teaches the truth about moral action. At the source and summit of the economy of salvation, as the Alpha and the Omega of human history (cf. Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13), Christ sheds light on man’s condition and his integral vocation. Consequently, “the man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly — and not just in accordance with immediate, partial, often superficial, and even illusory standards and measures of his being — must with his unrest, uncertainty and even his weakness and sinfulness, with his life and death, draw near to Christ. He must, so to speak, enter him with all his own self; he must ‘appropriate’ and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself. If this profound process takes place within him, he then bears fruit not only of adoration of God but also of deeper wonder at himself”.16
If we therefore wish to go to the heart of the Gospel’s moral teaching and grasp its profound and unchanging content, we must carefully inquire into the meaning of the question asked by the rich young man in the Gospel and, even more, the meaning of Jesus’ reply, allowing ourselves to be guided by him. Jesus, as a patient and sensitive teacher, answers the young man by taking him, as it were, by the hand, and leading him step by step to the full truth.
“There is only one who is good” (Mt 19:17)
9. Jesus says: “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17). In the versions of the Evangelists Mark and Luke the question is phrased in this way: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18; cf. Lk 18:19).
Before answering the question, Jesus wishes the young man to have a clear idea of why he asked his question. The “Good Teacher” points out to him — and to all of us — that the answer to the question, “What good must I do to have eternal life?” can only be found by turning one’s mind and heart to the “One” who is good: “No one is good but God alone” (Mk 10:18; cf. Lk 18:19). Only God can answer the question about what is good, because he is the Good itself.
To ask about the good, in fact, ultimately means to turn towards God, the fullness of goodness. Jesus shows that the young man’s question is really a religious question, and that the goodness that attracts and at the same time obliges man has its source in God, and indeed is God himself. God alone is worthy of being loved “with all one’s heart, and with all one’s soul, and with all one’s mind” (Mt 22:37). He is the source of man’s happiness. Jesus brings the question about morally good action back to its religious foundations, to the acknowledgment of God, who alone is goodness, fullness of life, the final end of human activity, and perfect happiness.
10. The Church, instructed by the Teacher’s words, believes that man, made in the image of the Creator, redeemed by the Blood of Christ and made holy by the presence of the Holy Spirit, has as the ultimate purpose of his life to live “for the praise of God’s glory” (cf. Eph 1:12), striving to make each of his actions reflect the splendour of that glory. “Know, then, O beautiful soul, that you are the image of God”, writes Saint Ambrose. “Know that you are the glory of God (1 Cor 11:7). Hear how you are his glory. The Prophet says: Your knowledge has become too wonderful for me (cf. Ps. 138:6, Vulg.). That is to say, in my work your majesty has become more wonderful; in the counsels of men your wisdom is exalted. When I consider myself, such as I am known to you in my secret thoughts and deepest emotions, the mysteries of your knowledge are disclosed to me. Know then, O man, your greatness, and be vigilant”.17
What man is and what he must do becomes clear as soon as God reveals himself. The Decalogue is based on these words: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2-3). In the “ten words” of the Covenant with Israel, and in the whole Law, God makes himself known and acknowledged as the One who “alone is good”; the One who despite man’s sin remains the “model” for moral action, in accordance with his command, “You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2); as the One who, faithful to his love for man, gives him his Law (cf. Ex 19:9-24 and 20:18-21) in order to restore man’s original and peaceful harmony with the Creator and with all creation, and, what is more, to draw him into his divine love: “I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people” (Lev 26:12).
The moral life presents itself as the response due to the many gratuitous initiatives taken by God out of love for man. It is a response of love, according to the statement made in Deuteronomy about the fundamental commandment: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children” (Dt 6:4-7). Thus the moral life, caught up in the gratuitousness of God’s love, is called to reflect his glory: “For the one who loves God it is enough to be pleasing to the One whom he loves: for no greater reward should be sought than that love itself; charity in fact is of God in such a way that God himself is charity”.18
11. The statement that “There is only one who is good” thus brings us back to the “first tablet” of the commandments, which calls us to acknowledge God as the one Lord of all and to worship him alone for his infinite holiness (cf. Ex 20:2-11). The good is belonging to God, obeying him, walking humbly with him in doing justice and in loving kindness (cf.Mic 6:8). Acknowledging the Lord as God is the very core, the heart of the Law, from which the particular precepts flow and towards which they are ordered. In the morality of the commandments the fact that the people of Israel belongs to the Lord is made evident, because God alone is the One who is good. Such is the witness of Sacred Scripture, imbued in every one of its pages with a lively perception of God’s absolute holiness: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts” (Is 6:3).
But if God alone is the Good, no human effort, not even the most rigorous observance of the commandments, succeeds in “fulfilling” the Law, that is, acknowledging the Lord as God and rendering him the worship due to him alone (cf. Mt 4:10). This “fulfilment” can come only from a gift of God: the offer of a share in the divine Goodness revealed and communicated in Jesus, the one whom the rich young man addresses with the words “Good Teacher” (Mk 10:17; Lk 18:18). What the young man now perhaps only dimly perceives will in the end be fully revealed by Jesus himself in the invitation: “Come, follow me” (Mt 19:21).
“If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17)
12. Only God can answer the question about the good, because he is the Good. But God has already given an answer to this question: he did so by creating man and ordering him with wisdom and love to his final end, through the law which is inscribed in his heart (cf. Rom 2:15), the “natural law”. The latter “is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. God gave this light and this law to man at creation”.19 He also did so in the history of Israel, particularly in the “ten words”, the commandments of Sinai, whereby he brought into existence the people of the Covenant (cf. Ex 24) and called them to be his “own possession among all peoples”, “a holy nation” (Ex 19:5-6), which would radiate his holiness to all peoples (cf. Wis 18:4; Ez 20:41). The gift of the Decalogue was a promise and sign of the New Covenant, in which the law would be written in a new and definitive way upon the human heart (cf. Jer 31:31-34), replacing the law of sin which had disfigured that heart (cf. Jer 17:1). In those days, “a new heart” would be given, for in it would dwell “a new spirit”, the Spirit of God (cf. Ez 36:24-28).20
Consequently, after making the important clarification: “There is only one who is good”, Jesus tells the young man: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:17). In this way, a close connection is made between eternal life and obedience to God’s commandments: God’s commandments show man the path of life and they lead to it. From the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses, man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue. Jesus himself definitively confirms them and proposes them to us as the way and condition of salvation. The commandments are linked to a promise. In the Old Covenant the object of the promise was the possession of a land where the people would be able to live in freedom and in accordance with righteousness (cf. Dt 6:20-25). In the New Covenant the object of the promise is the “Kingdom of Heaven”, as Jesus declares at the beginning of the “Sermon on the Mount” — a sermon which contains the fullest and most complete formulation of the New Law (cf. Mt 5-7), clearly linked to the Decalogue entrusted by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. This same reality of the Kingdom is referred to in the expression “eternal life”, which is a participation in the very life of God. It is attained in its perfection only after death, but in faith it is even now a light of truth, a source of meaning for life, an inchoate share in the full following of Christ. Indeed, Jesus says to his disciples after speaking to the rich young man: “Every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life” (Mt 19:29).
13. Jesus’ answer is not enough for the young man, who continues by asking the Teacher about the commandments which must be kept: “He said to him, ‘Which ones?’ ” (Mt 19:18). He asks what he must do in life in order to show that he acknowledges God’s holiness. After directing the young man’s gaze towards God, Jesus reminds him of the commandments of the Decalogue regarding one’s neighbour: “Jesus said: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ ” (Mt 19:18-19).
From the context of the conversation, and especially from a comparison of Matthew’s text with the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, it is clear that Jesus does not intend to list each and every one of the commandments required in order to “enter into life”, but rather wishes to draw the young man’s attention to the “centrality” of the Decalogue with regard to every other precept, inasmuch as it is the interpretation of what the words “I am the Lord your God” mean for man. Nevertheless we cannot fail to notice which commandments of the Law the Lord recalls to the young man. They are some of the commandments belonging to the so-called “second tablet” of the Decalogue, the summary (cf. Rom 13: 8-10) and foundation of which is the commandment of love of neighbour: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Mt 19:19; cf. Mk 12:31). In this commandment we find a precise expression of the singular dignity of the human person, “the only creature that God has wanted for its own sake”.21 The different commandments of the Decalogue are really only so many reflections of the one commandment about the good of the person, at the level of the many different goods which characterize his identity as a spiritual and bodily being in relationship with God, with his neighbour and with the material world. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the Ten Commandments are part of God’s Revelation. At the same time, they teach us man’s true humanity. They shed light on the essential duties, and so indirectly on the fundamental rights, inherent in the nature of the human person”.22
The commandments of which Jesus reminds the young man are meant to safeguard the good of the person, the image of God, by protecting his goods. “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness” are moral rules formulated in terms of prohibitions. These negative precepts express with particular force the ever urgent need to protect human life, the communion of persons in marriage, private property, truthfulness and people’s good name.
The commandments thus represent the basic condition for love of neighbour; at the same time they are the proof of that love. They are the first necessary step on the journey towards freedom, its starting-point. “The beginning of freedom”, Saint Augustine writes, “is to be free from crimes… such as murder, adultery, fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege and so forth. When once one is without these crimes (and every Christian should be without them), one begins to lift up one’s head towards freedom. But this is only the beginning of freedom, not perfect freedom…”.23
14. This certainly does not mean that Christ wishes to put the love of neighbour higher than, or even to set it apart from, the love of God. This is evident from his conversation with the teacher of the Law, who asked him a question very much like the one asked by the young man. Jesus refers him to the two commandments of love of God and love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:25-27), and reminds him that only by observing them will he have eternal life: “Do this, and you will live” (Lk 10:28). Nonetheless it is significant that it is precisely the second of these commandments which arouses the curiosity of the teacher of the Law, who asks him: “And who is my neighbour?” (Lk 10:29). The Teacher replies with the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is critical for fully understanding the commandment of love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:30-37).
These two commandments, on which “depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Mt 22:40), are profoundly connected and mutually related. Their inseparable unity is attested to by Christ in his words and by his very life: his mission culminates in the Cross of our Redemption (cf. Jn 3:14-15), the sign of his indivisible love for the Father and for humanity (cf. Jn 13:1).
Both the Old and the New Testaments explicitly affirm that without love of neighbour, made concrete in keeping the commandments, genuine love for God is not possible. Saint John makes the point with extraordinary forcefulness: “If anyone says, ‘I love God’, and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (Jn 4:20). The Evangelist echoes the moral preaching of Christ, expressed in a wonderful and unambiguous way in the parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:30-37) and in his words about the final judgment (cf. Mt 25:31-46).
15. In the “Sermon on the Mount”, the magna charta of Gospel morality,24 Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Mt 5:17). Christ is the key to the Scriptures: “You search the Scriptures…; and it is they that bear witness to me” (Jn 5:39). Christ is the centre of the economy of salvation, the recapitulation of the Old and New Testaments, of the promises of the Law and of their fulfilment in the Gospel; he is the living and eternal link between the Old and the New Covenants. Commenting on Paul’s statement that “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom 10:4), Saint Ambrose writes: “end not in the sense of a deficiency, but in the sense of the fullness of the Law: a fullness which is achieved in Christ (plenitudo legis in Christo est), since he came not to abolish the Law but to bring it to fulfilment. In the same way that there is an Old Testament, but all truth is in the New Testament, so it is for the Law: what was given through Moses is a figure of the true law. Therefore, the Mosaic Law is an image of the truth”.25
Jesus brings God’s commandments to fulfilment, particularly the commandment of love of neighbour, by interiorizing their demands and by bringing out their fullest meaning. Love of neighbour springs from a loving heart which, precisely because it loves, is ready to live out the loftiest challenges. Jesus shows that the commandments must not be understood as a minimum limit not to be gone beyond, but rather as a path involving a moral and spiritual journey towards perfection, at the heart of which is love (cf. Col 3:14). Thus the commandment “You shall not murder” becomes a call to an attentive love which protects and promotes the life of one’s neighbour. The precept prohibiting adultery becomes an invitation to a pure way of looking at others, capable of respecting the spousal meaning of the body: “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment’. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment… You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’. But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:21-22, 27-28). Jesus himself is the living “fulfilment” of the Law inasmuch as he fulfils its authentic meaning by the total gift of himself: he himself becomes a living and personal Law, who invites people to follow him; through the Spirit, he gives the grace to share his own life and love and provides the strength to bear witness to that love in personal choices and actions (cf. Jn 13:34-35).
“If you wish to be perfect” (Mt 19:21)
16. The answer he receives about the commandments does not satisfy the young man, who asks Jesus a further question. “I have kept all these; what do I still lack? ” (Mt 19:20). It is not easy to say with a clear conscience “I have kept all these”, if one has any understanding of the real meaning of the demands contained in God’s Law. And yet, even though he is able to make this reply, even though he has followed the moral ideal seriously and generously from childhood, the rich young man knows that he is still far from the goal: before the person of Jesus he realizes that he is still lacking something. It is his awareness of this insufficiency that Jesus addresses in his final answer. Conscious of the young man’s yearning for something greater, which would transcend a legalistic interpretation of the commandments, the Good Teacher invites him to enter upon the path of perfection: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Mt 19:21).
Like the earlier part of Jesus’ answer, this part too must be read and interpreted in the context of the whole moral message of the Gospel, and in particular in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:3-12), the first of which is precisely the Beatitude of the poor, the “poor in spirit” as Saint Matthew makes clear (Mt 5:3), the humble. In this sense it can be said that the Beatitudes are also relevant to the answer given by Jesus to the young man’s question: “What good must I do to have eternal life? “. Indeed, each of the Beatitudes promises, from a particular viewpoint, that very “good” which opens man up to eternal life, and indeed is eternal life.
The Beatitudes are not specifically concerned with certain particular rules of behaviour. Rather, they speak of basic attitudes and dispositions in life and therefore they do not coincide exactly with the commandments. On the other hand, there is no separation or opposition between the Beatitudes and the commandments: both refer to the good, to eternal life. The Sermon on the Mount begins with the proclamation of the Beatitudes, but also refers to the commandments (cf. Mt 5:20-48). At the same time, the Sermon on the Mount demonstrates the openness of the commandments and their orientation towards the horizon of the perfection proper to the Beatitudes. These latter are above all promises, from which there also indirectly flow normative indications for the moral life. In their originality and profundity they are a sort of self- portrait of Christ, and for this very reason are invitations to discipleship and to communion of life with Christ.26
17. We do not know how clearly the young man in the Gospel understood the profound and challenging import of Jesus’ first reply: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments”. But it is certain that the young man’s commitment to respect all the moral demands of the commandments represents the absolutely essential ground in which the desire for perfection can take root and mature, the desire, that is, for the meaning of the commandments to be completely fulfilled in following Christ. Jesus’ conversation with the young man helps us to grasp the conditions for the moral growth of man, who has been called to perfection: the young man, having observed all the commandments, shows that he is incapable of taking the next step by himself alone. To do so requires mature human freedom (“If you wish to be perfect”) and God’s gift of grace (“Come, follow me”).
Perfection demands that maturity in self-giving to which human freedom is called. Jesus points out to the young man that the commandments are the first and indispensable condition for having eternal life; on the other hand, for the young man to give up all he possesses and to follow the Lord is presented as an invitation: “If you wish…”. These words of Jesus reveal the particular dynamic of freedom’s growth towards maturity, and at the same time they bear witness to the fundamental relationship between freedom and divine law. Human freedom and God’s law are not in opposition; on the contrary, they appeal one to the other. The follower of Christ knows that his vocation is to freedom. “You were called to freedom, brethren” (Gal 5:13), proclaims the Apostle Paul with joy and pride. But he immediately adds: “only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another” (ibid.). The firmness with which the Apostle opposes those who believe that they are justified by the Law has nothing to do with man’s “liberation” from precepts. On the contrary, the latter are at the service of the practice of love: “For he who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the Law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ ” (Rom 13:8-9). Saint Augustine, after speaking of the observance of the commandments as being a kind of incipient, imperfect freedom, goes on to say: “Why, someone will ask, is it not yet perfect? Because ‘I see in my members another law at war with the law of my reason’… In part freedom, in part slavery: not yet complete freedom, not yet pure, not yet whole, because we are not yet in eternity. In part we retain our weakness and in part we have attained freedom. All our sins were destroyed in Baptism, but does it follow that no weakness remained after iniquity was destroyed? Had none remained, we would live without sin in this life. But who would dare to say this except someone who is proud, someone unworthy of the mercy of our deliverer?… Therefore, since some weakness has remained in us, I dare to say that to the extent to which we serve God we are free, while to the extent that we follow the law of sin, we are still slaves”.27
18. Those who live “by the flesh” experience God’s law as a burden, and indeed as a denial or at least a restriction of their own freedom. On the other hand, those who are impelled by love and “walk by the Spirit” (Gal 5:16), and who desire to serve others, find in God’s Law the fundamental and necessary way in which to practise love as something freely chosen and freely lived out. Indeed, they feel an interior urge — a genuine “necessity” and no longer a form of coercion — not to stop at the minimum demands of the Law, but to live them in their “fullness”. This is a still uncertain and fragile journey as long as we are on earth, but it is one made possible by grace, which enables us to possess the full freedom of the children of God (cf. Rom 8:21) and thus to live our moral life in a way worthy of our sublime vocation as “sons in the Son”.
This vocation to perfect love is not restricted to a small group of individuals. The invitation, “go, sell your possessions and give the money to the poor”, and the promise “you will have treasure in heaven”, are meant for everyone, because they bring out the full meaning of the commandment of love for neighbour, just as the invitation which follows, “Come, follow me”, is the new, specific form of the commandment of love of God. Both the commandments and Jesus’ invitation to the rich young man stand at the service of a single and indivisible charity, which spontaneously tends towards that perfection whose measure is God alone: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus makes even clearer the meaning of this perfection: “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Lk 6:36).
“Come, follow me” (Mt 19:21)
19. The way and at the same time the content of this perfection consist in the following of Jesus, sequela Christi, once one has given up one’s own wealth and very self. This is precisely the conclusion of Jesus’ conversation with the young man: “Come, follow me” (Mt 19:21). It is an invitation the marvellous grandeur of which will be fully perceived by the disciples after Christ’s Resurrection, when the Holy Spirit leads them to all truth (cf. Jn 16:13).
It is Jesus himself who takes the initiative and calls people to follow him. His call is addressed first to those to whom he entrusts a particular mission, beginning with the Twelve; but it is also clear that every believer is called to be a follower of Christ (cf. Acts 6:1). Following Christ is thus the essential and primordial foundation of Christian morality: just as the people of Israel followed God who led them through the desert towards the Promised Land (cf. Ex 13:21), so every disciple must follow Jesus, towards whom he is drawn by the Father himself (cf. Jn 6:44).
This is not a matter only of disposing oneself to hear a teaching and obediently accepting a commandment. More radically, it involves holding fast to the very person of Jesus, partaking of his life and his destiny, sharing in his free and loving obedience to the will of the Father. By responding in faith and following the one who is Incarnate Wisdom, the disciple of Jesus truly becomes a disciple of God (cf. Jn 6:45). Jesus is indeed the light of the world, the light of life (cf. Jn 8:12). He is the shepherd who leads his sheep and feeds them (cf. Jn 10:11-16); he is the way, and the truth, and the life (cf. Jn 14:6). It is Jesus who leads to the Father, so much so that to see him, the Son, is to see the Father (cf. Jn 14:6-10). And thus to imitate the Son, “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), means to imitate the Father.
20. Jesus asks us to follow him and to imitate him along the path of love, a love which gives itself completely to the brethren out of love for God: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). The word “as” requires imitation of Jesus and of his love, of which the washing of feet is a sign: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you” (Jn 13:14-15). Jesus’ way of acting and his words, his deeds and his precepts constitute the moral rule of Christian life. Indeed, his actions, and in particular his Passion and Death on the Cross, are the living revelation of his love for the Father and for others. This is exactly the love that Jesus wishes to be imitated by all who follow him. It is the “new” commandment: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:34-35).
LikeLike
mtx, “could”? That’s a waffle word. Pope up like Leo XIII.
I believe Sean did give you biblical support for rejecting non-canonical teaching.
You may think that doesn’t apply to the canon. But on your expansive view of obeying the church, it’s the will of God to accept what the church teaches, you are in a predicament when it comes to that Paul is saying and believing in the immaculate conception of Mary. The Bible doesn’t teach it and — get this — Paul warns about receiving teaching on the authority of status. Paul doesn’t seem to think my soul is in jeopardy for not “venerating” Mary. You do. Who should I believe?
LikeLike
Hart,
“Could” is not there for waffling. It is there for the fact of not having the state of you soul revealed to me. I already said I do not hesitate to say you could be sacrificing your salvation. You are welcome to honestly answer me the questions I gave you to help you judge the state of your soul, regarding the Church. I would recommend doing it by email though. I do hope you realize I am faithful by grace to die before I would reveal such a thing to others.
Regarding Galatians, maybe you can give me an explaination as to how it prohibits Apostolic Traditions not contained in Scripture when not all the Apostolic Traditions that got written were written yet. I’m not seeing it logically coherent.
LikeLike
@mtx
-One can believe things not contained in scripture: I believe the universe is 13.6Gyr.
-One might also believe things about church not contained in scripture: it is better to have Sunday school after the worship service.
-One might even have convictions about moral questions not contained in scripture: it is wrong for me to watch television.
But when I raise my personal conviction (I shouldn’t watch late night tv) to an article of faith (you will be excommunicated and should have no assurance of salvation if you do not believe you shouldn’t watch television), then it has to come from scripture.
So if you come to the conviction that you should believe the IC and there is no scriptural basis to reject that belief, you should do so – to not do so may even be sinful. But it is sinful to make it a rule of faith.
The RCC errs when it teaches that one must believe things and do things not required by scripture as a condition of one’s salvation. This is what Paul is forbidding in Galatians (and other epistles). Not eating meat on Fridays, setting aside a day in honor of Calvin, and avoiding TV are all fine things to do. You might even be compelled to do them by your conscience. But it is wrong for the church to compel them.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 22, 2015 at 6:45 am | Permalink
vd, t, “a thousand popes”?
And you’re one of them, selecting which dogmas you believe and deciding whether or not to go church.
The thanks we get.
Protestantism is an incoherent mess. “Presbyterianism” is a mess.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/20/wilmington-lesbian-couple-ordained/25096151/
Catholicism is a mess, but it’s coherent. It’s your understanding of it that’s defective [or dishonest, I can never decide which].
LikeLike
TVHS, the school of herrings called — they want all their red ones back. The OPC left the PCUSA when the PCUSA left Xianity in the 30’s The PCA was never a part of it. Even for all the diversity in the PCA the NAPARC denoms have a surprising amount of doctrinal agreement. Please, again, account for Marxist Jesuits, Fascist-supporting orders, NPR nuns in slacks, pro-choice RC politicians, Irish trads (who could not prevent Eire from going rainbow), South American and Caribbean syncretists, Green popes, molester-friendly bishops, and Fox News Republic-Cats (they run the place). Oh, and you.
LikeLike
cw l’unificateur
Posted July 22, 2015 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
TVHS, the school of herrings called — they want all their red ones back. The OPC left the PCUSA when the PCUSA left Xianity in the 30’s The PCA was never a part of it. Even for all the diversity in the PCA the NAPARC denoms have a surprising amount of doctrinal agreement. Please, again, account for Marxist Jesuits, Fascist-supporting orders, NPR nuns in slacks, pro-choice RC politicians, Irish trads (who could not prevent Eire from going rainbow), South American and Caribbean syncretists, Green popes, molester-friendly bishops, and Fox News Republic-Cats (they run the place). Oh, and you.
No, actually they kicked Machen out. Read your history. You’re the heretics. They’re the Presbyterians. As for the rest of your laundry list, you speak of the toenails, not the body itself.
As for some fragments of fragmented Presbyterianism agreeing with each other on a lot of stuff, some coherence in the sea of incoherence that is “Protestantism,” it’s a near statistical probabilty. Still, you remain fractured beyond measure.
But the point is Darryl’s lame tactic of trying to argue a paragraph from 1563 against a sentence a Catholic from Texas wrote in a combox, while “Protestantism” is coming down around your ears. His approach does not seek truth, only error.
LikeLike
sdb,
The preference thing you are talking about is definitely wrong to raise to an excommunicable offence. All Reformed confessions, to my knowledge, teach Sola Scriptura as a essential doctrine. As you are teaching in your statement, too. Yet, it is not being produced from Scripture that it is taught, therefore it is a preference not a doctrine which should be in a confession from which one could be excommunicated for not affirming. You have stated it yourself.
But when I raise my personal conviction… to an article of faith…, then it has to come from scripture.
Show me from Scripture the “article of faith” Sola Scriptura, which I am excluded from union with the Reformed confessions by. Do you see the importance of this problem now? It is the Reformed who are rejecting and excluding me by not living by there own required doctrine on a principle tenant of the Reformed confessions. Show me the Scriptures teaching Sola Scriptura. This is one of the big five solas. I’ve seen reasonable argument for all of them, but not this one. It is arguably this sola and Sola Fide that make up the totality of the Reformation. If it is a preference not taught in Scripture, all the Reformed confessions hold as an excommunicable offence what Scripture has not taught. No officer of any Reformed Church could not hold to Sola Scriptura and it is not listed in the Scripture as something an officer must believe, nor a layman.
LikeLike
@Kevin
If 90% or so of American Catholics are functionally apostate, what does that say about the institutional capacity of the Church to pass on its doctrine?
LikeLike
Mtx, your understanding of the gospel contradicts what Paul says in Galatians 1. the immaculate conception is not necessary for salvation. If it were, Paul would have explained it in all that he — not Peter — he wrote to the churches.
You guys love to talk about the intellectual tradition of Roman Catholicism but sometimes I wonder if you guys actually know how to read (other than Vatican press releases).
LikeLike
vdt putting the v d in evade again.
LikeLike
cw, but the OPC and PCA are much smaller than all the U.S. Roman Catholics like vd, t who don’t follow church teaching or practices.
LikeLike
vd t, and Roman Catholicism isn’t coming down in your home? Are you even observant?
LikeLike
@mtx
Just as a matter of truth in advertising, I’m just a layman – not an officer or a scholar of reformed history. I can speak a bit to my own denomination, but even here I can get a bit fuzzy on some of the arcane church governance stuff.
You wrote,
Not exactly. To join the PCA you have to adhere to five membership vows:
1) Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save [except] in His sovereign mercy?
2) Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3) Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
4) Do you promise to support the church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5) Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the church, and promise to study its purity and peace?
To be an officer in the church (ruling elder, deacon, or teaching elder-i.e., pastor) you have to subscribe to the WCF and WS/LC – but even here one can take an exception to the standards and the presbytery can decide whether to grant that (I’m not sure what happens if the presbytery allows an exception other presbyteries would frown upon…that’s just my ignorance). I’m not sure how other confessional reformed protestant churches roll in this regard. My understanding is that the CRC and EPC are pretty lax, the URCNA, OPC, etc.. are a bit stricter, but the real experts here can clarify if it matters to you. All this to say the following isn’t quite right if by essential doctrine, you mean an member can be excommunicated over it:
“All Reformed confessions, to my knowledge, teach Sola Scriptura as a essential doctrine.”
To be sure the confessions do teach sola scripture, but I don’t think a member would be excommunicated for doubting this…at least in the PCA.
Let’s pick up this issue on the other thread.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 22, 2015 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
cw, but the OPC and PCA are much smaller than all the U.S. Roman Catholics like vd, t who don’t follow church teaching or practices.
PCA = 350,000 members
OPC =30,000 members
Shrink your churches small enough and I suppose something like orthodoxy can be said to exist. But it’s just a numbers dodge.
PCUSA = 1.500,000+ members
Whose Presbyterianism is it anyway? Looks like you’re on the outside looking in, tough guy.
LikeLike
I will with no hesitation say it is quite possible you can be sacrificing your salvation. The problem is I am not the one who knows this
Mike, I will with no hesitation say
it is quite possibleyoucan beare sacrificing your salvation if you continue to believe and practice the Roman faith. The problem isI am not the one whoyou should knowsthis from the clear testimony of Scripture, but until God opens your eyes, you will refuse to see it.2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
About the teaching a lot more than Christ, you, nor anyone here, has yet to make a reasonable case from Scripture for rejecting Apostolic Traditions not contradicted by Scripture but not contained in Scripture.
You don’t pay attention too well, Mike. If Scripture is sufficient – and you haven’t shown that it isn’t contra 2 Tim.3:17 and “every good work” – then the so called traditions are unnecessary/redundant. Why bother with carbon copies when you can have the real thing?
Because then Rome couldn’t lord it over men’s consciences and you couldn’t pat yourself on the back for all the good works you do that earn your salvation, whether it is attending the mass, saying the rosary or helping little old ladies across the street.
Matt. 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Forget about ISIS, Rome is cesspool of self righteous iniquity that butchers souls like Planned Parenthood butchers babies.
LikeLike
#puttingthevdinevade
LikeLike
vd, t, who’s in?
LikeLike
Bob, “carbon copies”? How about drunken courtroom artist’s sketch after it’s been left out in the rain?
LikeLike
Speaking of carbon, is the hippie pope’s fear of the building block of life costing him in ‘Merica? Does he care?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/22/popes-popularity-plummets-among-americans/
LikeLike
@Hart
D. G. Hart
Posted July 22, 2015 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
Mtx, your understanding of the gospel contradicts what Paul says in Galatians 1. the immaculate conception is not necessary for salvation. If it were, Paul would have explained it in all that he — not Peter — he wrote to the churches.
If Sola Scripture was so fundamental to the operation of the Church, Paul and Peter and every body else in the NT would have laid it out. Instead they are talking about tradition “written” or “unwritten” and being taught to teach others to teach what he had heard from Paul an Apostles in the hearing “of many witnesses” and the importance that Paul having recieved and passed on and the Apostles hearing “whoever hears you, hears Me” and even such things as “who ever sins you forgive they are forgiven” and the leaders Christ set up being told to teach all that they had had commanded to the to the whole world and that Christ would be with them “even to the consummation of the age.” Please remember this is God who says these things and “In the beginning” His voice accomplished what it said. This voice changes/creates reality. Would you have confessed your sins to the Apostles so they could forgive your sins had you live during there lives, as the Scripture says they could do?
Whom are you to say the Assumption is not part of the “good news”? Mary as nothing but a creature like us had faith and entrusted herself to God’s plan and in the end of her life Christ saw fit to bring her into his presence body and soul. Is this not the plan for us all whom have faith? Can you say this is not part of Apostolic Tradition that clearly does not contradict the plan of salvation? This is a witness to the plan witnessed in the Scriptures. Why disbelieve or condemn my teaching for what Scripture does not condemn? BTW, I never said believing in the Assumption was in anyway the Gospel, believing Christ is though. For me and what God has taught me, ignoring the protected teachings of the Catholic Church is ignoring Christ and the Holy Spirit, therefore not believing. It would be to not have faith. It is ok to seek to understand the dogmas and struggle with them. It is not ok to reject them and not seek to understand them. This is mortal sin. The act of rejecting the Gospel. If the Gospel is “Repent and believe the Gospel” as Christ the messenger sent from God says, the whole of the Gospel hinges on that first phrase of Christ. Paul would say, “the obedience of faith”. Must we “repent and believe” the teaching messanger of the Gospel? Yes. Who is that messanger after the Assention? The Apostles. Who is that messanger after the Apostles? Those sent by the Apostles. Who is that messanger after those sent by those sent by the Apostles? Those sent by those sent by the Apostles. Apostolic Succession is part of the Gospel. Jesus appointed Paul. Paul appointed Timothy. Timothy was told to teach and appoint those who would teach what he was taught. I don’t know why this is difficult to see. Leave the Church, leave the ones sent and commanded to teach the believable Gospel. Accepting the messanger of the true Gospel as one sent from God is part of the true Christocentric Apostolic Gospel. As the anointed One says, “If you do not believe I am who I say I am you will die in your sins.” The Church does not come on its own authority, but the authority given to it.
LikeLike
mtx, this is tedious.
“If Sola Scripture was so fundamental to the operation of the Church, Paul and Peter and every body else in the NT would have laid it out.”
Same goes for papal supremacy. Sola scriptura is an inference from what Jesus and the apostles did with the OT canon, and from the self-awareness that sometimes shows up in the NT. It’s also an inference from the pattern of God revealing himself by the PROPHETS AND the apostles. Did Jesus and the apostles appeal to an oral tradition of the prophets? And to make this matter more poignant, has Rome abused an alleged oral tradition to bind consciences in ways illegitimate — like beliefs about the Virgin Mary which even your friend vd, t says is inconsequential for salvation?
You have a theory of papal supremacy as if Jesus laid out canon law. It has been shown to be a late construction by believing Roman Catholic historians.
We have a theory of sola Scriptura and you try to show how that is historically constructed.
You allow the one but not the other. And yet you do treat the Bible as God’s Word. I don’t treat the papacy as Peter’s successor (as if the Bible even teaches rule by one — bishops).
I think you’re the one inconsistent. Go all the way and choose the church above Scripture. You can’t.
LikeLike
<i.D. G. Hart
Posted July 23, 2015 at 6:44 am | Permalink
vd, t, who’s in?
Recalling saint reformers of the past, John Ricard, bishop emeritus of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Fla., recently praised a small group of women who, for years, have stood in silent protest during Mass each week, appealing for an end to the church’s discrimination against women and complicity in war.
“I want to thank you for standing, for your witness,” Ricard said. “You are a sign that the church can change. There have been others who were reformers — Ignatius, Teresa of Avila. Thank you for believing in the church and working to change it from within.”
The unexpected affirmation came at the conclusion of the 10:30 a.m. confirmation Mass held May 31 at Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. Fr. David Bava, the pastor, had just finished the final announcement when Ricard, the morning’s homilist, returned to the podium to ask, “Where are the standing women?” and then proceeded to commend them.
The bishop’s words of praise astonished the women, who have stood for years during Mass, unacknowledged.
Instead of the Protestant way–taking your ball and starting a new church down the street, until there are 100s and 1000s of new popes and councils. You still don’t get it.
Actually you do, Butch, which is why you troll the internet for stories like this to gnaw on Catholicism’s ankles. But everything you come up with disproves your case.
LikeLike
vd, t, it gnaws at your ankles clearly, and you don’t even care enough to go to church.
LikeLike
<i.D. G. Hart
Posted July 23, 2015 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
vd, t, it gnaws at your ankles clearly, and you don’t even care enough to go to church.
Ad hom. You lose again, Butch. If you had a principled rebuttal, you’d have used that instead.
And again, my personal life is none of your goddam business.
LikeLike
Hart,
Go all the way and choose the church above Scripture. You can’t.
Nope I can’t. The Catholic never would. The Church would proclaim me a blasphemer and a heretic. The books of the NT are from the womb of the Church. From those born again within her. As a good mother she will protect her divine child and excommunicate the imposter.
“The Church venerates the Scriptures as she vernerates the Body of Christ”- VII Dei Verbum
LikeLike
TVHS, nor apparently do you have any business with the third commandment.
LikeLike
vd, t, right. But is your personal life any of the business of the church you defend?
LikeLike
Hart,
Sola scriptura is an inference from what Jesus and the apostles did with the OT canon, and from the self-awareness that sometimes shows up in the NT.
Since when have Catholics not pointed to the authority of the Scriptures like Christ and the Apostles did? This is the point. What they did is the exact thing we do, even if it is something you do too. What they did not do was say, “if it can’t be found in Scripture, we don’t teach it as authoritative.” That is what I am asking you not to “infer” or at least you should not say it is what I should believe. This would be you at least being consistent with your own belief. If my Catholic belief is not condemned in Scripture, state my freedom to believe different than your inference(which has more than one possibility).
LikeLike
cw l’unificateur
Posted July 23, 2015 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
TVHS, nor apparently do you have any business with the third commandment.
D. G. Hart
Posted July 23, 2015 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
vd, t, right. But is your personal life any of the business of the church you defend?
Gentlepersons, getting personal with me isn’t going to stop the bleeding from your self-inflicted wounds here. You’re quite on the run. And any further reply from me on these personal attacks just helps you bury the evidence of getting your theological asses kicked by Michael.
Whose churches say “Catholic” on them? Hint: Not yours. Keep gnawing on those ankles, Butch.
LikeLike
mtx, you just did avoided pointing to the authority of the Scriptures in saying that Pope Francis doesn’t have to go around telling everyone the truth.
LikeLike
#puttingthevdinevade
LikeLike
@mtx I think you are confused on sola scriptura.
One can infer binding doctrine from indicative passages in the scriptures and still be consistent with “sola scriptura”. One doesn’t need a bible verse that says, “you should only believe the 66 books” to get to sola scriptura. So when you write,
For example, no where does the NT tell us to baptize babies. It is inferred from the pattern in the OT. This is consistent with sola scriptura. Here I think is the meat of the controversy though,
This is not correct. Or at least it is the crux of the debate. Jesus and the apostles did not appeal to their traditions as authoritative teaching. To be sure they referenced various traditions (Prots do that too!), but what they didn’t do is say – you are doing this wrong or are you are saddled with this wrong belief because it contradicts this extra-canonical rabbinical saying. However, your church does do that. Your church tells us we are in danger of hell fire because we don’t accept the IC and the evidence for that is grounded in extra-canonical tradition.
But of course we do this. I don’t think methodists and anglicans are turned away from our table even though they formally reject sola scriptura. They don’t have to give up their belief in prima scriptura to join our churches (well the PCA at least). You are free to adopt prima rather than sola. But this isn’t what you believe. You believe that this part of the Catholic Faith must be believed (sola scriptura must be repudiated) to not put one’s salvation at risk.
LikeLike
sdb,
Not sure if you caught it. This was from Hart: “Sola scriptura is an inference from what Jesus and the apostles did with the OT canon, and from the self-awareness that sometimes shows up in the NT.”
I was responding to his argument. I know doctrines can be inferred from Scripture and be consistent with Sola Scriptura. I believe though that if you are operating within a Sola Scriptura framework and two inferences are reasonable a confession should not make one binding and the foundation of your belief system, Sola Scriptura. This is just reasonable and just among Sola Scripturist.
Sorry. Maybe in some Protestant churches folks who don’t hold to Sola Scripture won’t be turned away from communion, but do you think Hart or RC Spoul would keep there position if they formally rejected it? Why would someone go to a table of teachers that required a belief they formally required of its elders and teachers to believe, if they rejected it? Would you receive communion in a JW hall or even an Anglican Church?
Hart, you care to make a statement on your think about that? Do you think you could keep your office rejecting Sola Scriptura?
LikeLike
Hart,
mtx, you just did avoided pointing to the authority of the Scriptures in saying that Pope Francis doesn’t have to go around telling everyone the truth.
Twisting me there. Get on to the homilies page and hear Francis teach. Every homily is available on the Vatican site.
Here is from his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I think you are missing the life of Christ acting in a sinner, Pope Francis:
271. It is true that in our dealings with the world, we are told to give reasons for our hope, but not as an enemy who critiques and condemns. We are told quite clearly: “do so with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet 3:15) and “if possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:18). We are also told to overcome “evil with good” (Rom 12:21) and to “work for the good of all” (Gal 6:10). Far from trying to appear better than others, we should “in humility count others better” than ourselves (Phil 2:3). The Lord’s apostles themselves enjoyed “favour with all the people” (Acts 2:47; 4:21, 33; 5:13). Clearly Jesus does not want us to be grandees who look down upon others, but men and women of the people. This is not an idea of the Pope, or one pastoral option among others; they are injunctions contained in the word of God which are so clear, direct and convincing that they need no interpretations which might diminish their power to challenge us. Let us live them sine glossa, without commentaries. By so doing we will know the missionary joy of sharing life with God’s faithful people as we strive to light a fire in the heart of the world.
272. Loving others is a spiritual force drawing us to union with God; indeed, one who does not love others “walks in the darkness” (1 Jn 2:11), “remains in death” (1 Jn 3:14) and “does not know God” (1 Jn 4:8). Benedict XVI has said that “closing our eyes to our neighbour also blinds us to God”,[209] and that love is, in the end, the only light which “can always illuminate a world grown dim and give us the courage needed to keep living and working”.[210] When we live out a spirituality of drawing nearer to others and seeking their welfare, our hearts are opened wide to the Lord’s greatest and most beautiful gifts. Whenever we encounter another person in love, we learn something new about God. Whenever our eyes are opened to acknowledge the other, we grow in the light of faith and knowledge of God. If we want to advance in the spiritual life, then, we must constantly be missionaries. The work of evangelization enriches the mind and the heart; it opens up spiritual horizons; it makes us more and more sensitive to the workings of the Holy Spirit, and it takes us beyond our limited spiritual constructs. A committed missionary knows the joy of being a spring which spills over and refreshes others. Only the person who feels happiness in seeking the good of others, in desiring their happiness, can be a missionary. This openness of the heart is a source of joy, since “it is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). We do not live better when we flee, hide, refuse to share, stop giving and lock ourselves up in own comforts. Such a life is nothing less than slow suicide.
273. My mission of being in the heart of the people is not just a part of my life or a badge I can take off; it is not an “extra” or just another moment in life. Instead, it is something I cannot uproot from my being without destroying my very self. I am a mission on this earth; that is the reason why I am here in this world. We have to regard ourselves as sealed, even branded, by this mission of bringing light, blessing, enlivening, raising up, healing and freeing. All around us we begin to see nurses with soul, teachers with soul, politicians with soul, people who have chosen deep down to be with others and for others. But once we separate our work from our private lives, everything turns grey and we will always be seeking recognition or asserting our needs. We stop being a people.
274. If we are to share our lives with others and generously give of ourselves, we also have to realize that every person is worthy of our giving. Not for their physical appearance, their abilities, their language, their way of thinking, or for any satisfaction that we might receive, but rather because they are God’s handiwork, his creation. God created that person in his image, and he or she reflects something of God’s glory. Every human being is the object of God’s infinite tenderness, and he himself is present in their lives. Jesus offered his precious blood on the cross for that person. Appearances notwithstanding, every person is immensely holy and deserves our love. Consequently, if I can help at least one person to have a better life, that already justifies the offering of my life. It is a wonderful thing to be God’s faithful people. We achieve fulfillment when we break down walls and our heart is filled with faces and names!
LikeLike
mtx, the whole tradition of RC social teaching is premised on the the church speaking apart from Scripture. And your comment about Pope Francis not having to tell the truth all the time is a reflection of a mindset that says the church has the truth so why do the bishops have to keep saying it all the time? Why can’t the speak about more than what the Bible says?
But what could be more important than what the Bible says? And why does Tony Esolen show more discernment about the times than Pope Francis?
LikeLike
Hart,
Not sure what social teaching you talking about. I see none that speak “apart” from Scripture.
Maybe you missed to though. Pope Frances quote I gave references Scripture 9 times. Not trying to be mean but you are judging Francis when I haven’t seen nine references from you today in these two threads we have been talking on. Get into the homilies if you want to judge Francis’ biblical usage. Every one is built around Scripture.
LikeLike
Giving some leg work, Hart.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2015.index.html
2014 and 13 are linked on the left side of the page.
Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
mtx, in what confessional are you living? You are a proponent of Roman Catholicism and don’t know about its social teaching — think subsidiarity, think solidarity. Here‘s help.
Beware, though. You’re sounding like people who use Apple machines.
LikeLike
mtx, have you ever considered how much Francis’ homilies sound like Mr. Rogers?
LikeLike
@mtx I’ll be happy to stand corrected by elders in P&R churches, but my understanding is that elders are required to abide by the book of church order that includes a lot of prudential policies that are not claimed to be part of scripture. The basis for doing so is to maintain the order required by scripture. So no, in principle there is no problem with having the session commit to standards that we would not bind the congregation with. I gave you the vows to which you would need to commit to joun our church. You will notice the bar is low. I for one question the inerrancy of scripture (I’m probably wrong), I don’t think a particular exegetical approach is required, and doubt we can really justify a particular theory of inspiration. This disqualifies me from office and I certainty don’t advocate my views on this, but I could join and am welcome to the table…as are all baptized Christians in good standing in their Christian Church.
So I don’t think your objection to dgh is valid. You could join our church without changing your view of scripture. So sola scriptura is not binding in the sense you describe.
LikeLike
Hart,
I happen like Mr. Rogers. Solidarity and subsidiarity are not “apart” from the Biblical narrative. Easy to find in one verse.
“For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Subsidiarity=the one Son
Solidarity=for the love of the world
Catholic Social teaching in a nutshell.
Ever wonder why it doesn’t say “the people of the world”. It says “the world”. No cat can “believe” and have eternal life, but God doesn’t want the fallen human to kick it for no reason either.
Like I have said I haven’t read Laudato si’ yet, so I can speak well of its content. I have heard other than the outlive of Catholic social teaching very little in it is spoken in a authoritative way. More of a suggestive way.
LikeLike
mtx, you didn’t know what social teaching was and now you’re doing exegesis on the run from your favorite verse as a Protestant.
Scary that you like Mr. Rogers but makes sense.
LikeLike
sdb,
These two requirements is where I see the problem in my submission to your communities entry requirements, even as a layman:
4) Do you promise to support the church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5) Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the church, and promise to study its purity and peace?
Part of the “work” of a church is to evangelize and spread its beliefs. Sola Scriptura is a belief of your community. I couldn’t promise to help with that “work” because I believe it is in error. Being I believe it is error believe myself to be called to stop it. Your community is requiring me to do a “work” I don’t believe in to the “best of my abilities”. Could not promise that.
Why would I promise to “study its purity” when one of the chief ideas in my view is a corruption. Your community requirements require a honest person in my position to act a liar to enter. Can’t do that.
Prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture and we could get somewhere. Back to the other thread I guess.
LikeLike
Hart,
Read again please. Not sure what social teaching you talking about. I see none that speak “apart” from Scripture.
This doesn’t say I don’t know what Catholic social teaching is. It says I don’t know the aspect “you” are “talking about”. What I know a Catholic social teaching “none” “speak” apart “from Scripture. Which is what you claimed. Then I gave you a Scriptural passage that in a nutshell states the two ideas, subsidiarity and solidarity, you told me you were talking about.
BTW, haven’t seen Mr. Rogers in a long time, it was a bit of a joke. I don’t remember anything bad though. He even had a doctorate in theology if my memory serves me right.
LikeLike
mtx, but your biblical reference was about as deep as Pope Francis’ homilies.
And I see plenty in the papal encyclicals not derived from Scripture. Why would it need to be? You have oral tradition (you can make it up as you go).
LikeLike
“BTW, haven’t seen Mr. Rogers in a long time, it was a bit of a joke. I don’t remember anything bad though. He even had a doctorate in theology if my memory serves me right.”
Yeah. He was a presbyterian too…the kind Tom doesn’t like!
LikeLike
Not for everyone. For some people, the work is to keep the nursery and take meals to shut ins. We all have different callings within the body. So while I dissent from some beliefs (and thus cannot do some things…like serve as an officer) I can still, to the best of my ability support the church in its worship and work.
Now this is a bit different. It is one thing to say that you aren’t convinced. It is something else to say that you are convinced it is wrong and must work against it. That is where you are at. You want to make it a rule that one cannot adopt sola scriptura. Funny how this works…
As far as “proving” it from scripture, it is clear from Christ’s (and the Apostles’) use of the scriptures how we should use them. You evidently remain unconvinced. I think Mark’s account of Jesus’s interaction with the Pharisees is worth pondering,
Here we see how Jesus repudiates the leaders. Taken in context with Matthew 6, 15, and Luke 11 we see a theme here and have to ask how we should handle traditions and scripture. Scripture always gets the benefit of the doubt – we can never say, “that passage is wrong”. We can say that about traditions. We can (and must!) subject them to scrutiny, and the example we are given by Jesus is that the plumb line is scripture. When the Saducees tried to trap him on the resurrection by appealing to questions about marriage, Jesus’s answer was not – here is the (T)raditional understanding of that text. It was an appeal to scripture.
But the danger of tradition goes further. The OT did not forbid the tradition passed on by the elders. But it was used as cover for sin – scripture taught that what really mattered was the heart and the tradition got in the way of that. Thus Jesus repudiated the tradition. Then he pointed out how traditions could evolve in such away to lead to justifying the rejection of part of God’s law! Think about the tradition of eating fish on friday – a tradition to point people to sacrifice (giving up meat for the cheaper fish), but this tradition has had pernicious effects – now the lenten traditions are more about losing weight and carry all the solemnity of new year’s resolutions (I’m giving up chocolate and beer for lent so I’ll look better for spring break). At some point traditions can become so unhelpful, it is time to scrap it. How do we know which practices should be scrapped and which are binding? Jesus always turned to the scriptures. They stood alone as the final judge of all we do – this is sola scriptura. It is not the tossing of tradition, it is not to say that tradition should never bind our conscience,it is not saying that tradition is bad. It is saying that traditions may go astray and the unmovable, ultimate standard to which we are always called to judge these things is the scriptures alone. Sola scripture is not the belief that we have to have a bible verse that says “sola scriptura” which still seems to be what you are waiting for. That is an illegitimate demand.
LikeLike
Oops… this should have been in the other thread… I’m hopeless! Sorry about that.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“And I see plenty in the papal encyclicals not derived from Scripture.”
You mean not derived from your interpretation of Scripture. Btw can you tell me where plenty of what I see affirmed or assumed in Reformed works and councils such as the extent and scope of the canon, that said canon is inerrant, that public revelation ended with death of last apostle, that SS is the rule of faith and any binding unwritten tradition would be inscripturated, and that semper reformanda is a noble principle are derived from Scripture?
“Why would it need to be? You have oral tradition (you can make it up as you go).”
Nope tradition is binding and does not contradict scripture or itself so it obviously has parameters – development of doctrine does not entail a free for all.
LikeLike
vd, c, no I see plenty of references and notes — get this — not to scripture.
I’ll answer you on sola scriptura when you reveal by oral or written tradition your name.
The worship of Mary contradicts Scripture.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Pretty sure it’s not hard to find papal encyclicals referencing Scripture.
Name was given way back when you first asked when I came onto this site remember? You google-fu’ed and asked if I was some monsignor.
I agree the worship of Mary contradicts Scripture. So it’s a good thing RCism doesn’t affirm such. Glad we cleared that up and allayed your concerns that RCism contradicts Scripture.
LikeLike
vd, c, I can’t find your name. Please give it again.
And if your church doesn’t worship Mary, what’s up with this (from even the open-to-modernity-Vatican-2)?
LikeLike
“Special cult” — well, yeah. But maybe this is only for special needs Catholics. Our OL cats have special knowledge that allows them to somehow handle idolatry sinlessly. If only.
LikeLike
How about this quote from an Anglican that supports apostolic presbyterianism. Maybe the Romans were the innovators and unauthorized reformers.
http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2015/07/july-25-post-apostolic-presbyterianism/
LikeLike
Darryl,
James Young. Now youre free to answer my earlier question on Reformed doctrines supposedly derived from Scripture.
As to Mary worship didnt you read your citation – “This cult, as it always existed, although it is altogether singular, differs essentially from the cult of adoration which is offered to the Incarnate Word, as well to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it is most favorable to it. The various forms of piety toward the Mother of God, which the Church within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine.. ”
Still no worship. So still no contradiction of Scripture.
LikeLike
James Young, oh, so the veneration of Mary is a cult. That’ll work.
Still no citation of Scripture:
You want Scripture, just download the Confession of Faith with prooftexts:
LikeLike
Darryl,
Cool so can you point me to the prooftexts and citations of Scripture for the following:
The extent and scope of the canon
The inerrancy of said canon
Public revelation ended with death of last apostle
SS is the rule of faith and any binding unwritten tradition would be inscripturated
Semper reformanda is a noble principle
since if these aren’t derived from Scripture, they would seem to fall prey to your current line of criticism.
What do you mean “still no citation of Scripture” – your previous citation of LG said “All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me” – that’s a Scriptural citation. And if you look at the notes of Lumen Gentium – there are over 300 references to Scripture. So your concerns should now be allayed.
And regardless, just because one snippet in a document doesn’t reference Scripture does not mean the rest of the document or all encyclicals never reference Scripture. The documents defining the various Marian dogmas reference Scripture – that doesn’t mean subsequent documents must then always re-cite them and reinvent the wheel (reinventing the wheel’s a Protestant thing).
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted July 25, 2015 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
Darryl,
Cool so can you point me to the prooftexts and citations of Scripture for the following:
The extent and scope of the canon
The inerrancy of said canon
Public revelation ended with death of last apostle
SS is the rule of faith and any binding unwritten tradition would be inscripturated
Semper reformanda is a noble principle
since if these aren’t derived from Scripture, they would seem to fall prey to your current line of criticism.
What do you mean “still no citation of Scripture” – your previous citation of LG said “All generations shall call me blessed, because He that is mighty hath done great things to me” – that’s a Scriptural citation. And if you look at the notes of Lumen Gentium – there are over 300 references to Scripture. So your concerns should now be allayed.
Nothing you can do with anyone who get his information on Catholicism from Protestantism, repeating the same old lies and ignorance. Finding the truth takes work, and the sincerity to want to do it.
http://chnetwork.org/2011/10/hauled-aboard-the-ark-conversion-story-of-peter-kreeft/
LikeLike
“If the Church has no divine inspiration and no infallibility, no divine authority, then neither can the New Testament.”
Hmmmm… by that logic, the OT leaders eviscerated by Christ in gospels were infallible as well. Curious.
LikeLike
James Young, groovy.
But did you notice all this from Lumen Gentium?
Why so much clutter?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 25, 2015 at 10:24 pm | Permalink
James Young, groovy.
But did you notice all this from Lumen Gentium?
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES (*)
Why so much clutter?
Why so much clutter yourself, Butch? For fog and effect? Asked and answered:
Did you check the “clutter” infra for references to Scripture? Of course not. For instance, Aquinas’s Summa references scripture often, and thoroughly. Clearly, double-checking the truth of your charge is too much work.
And when the copious notes aren’t there, ignorant sophists accuse the magisterium of inconsistency. You get them either way. But not really, not in the eyes of anyone who’s actually paying attention. Poor show, mate.
LikeLike
Darryl,
This may be surprising, but RCism holds to STM, not just S alone (and TM are not “clutter”). So it – surprise – appeals to all 3 in its teachings. So we see the 300+ notes to Scripture references right before the “Supplementary Notes” section you just cited – http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html – for anyone who is interested.
So to get back off the rabbit trail (again), your original concern was Mary worship contradicts Scripture. I agreed. You then cited from LG where you thought it indicated Mary worship. I showed within that very citation where such worship was denied. You then said “Still no citation of Scripture”. I then showed what your earlier citation from LG actually cited Scripture along with LG’s 300+ Scriptural references noted at bottom. So your concerns should have been all met and allayed and “no I see plenty of references and notes — get this — not to scripture.” is now corrected.
But now you say essentially “okay, but you also reference all this TM stuff”. Well, yeah, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make – RCism doesn’t hold to SS. Which brings us back round to my question on the 5 doctrines I listed that I hear “plenty of” in Reformed works but am still waiting to see where they are derived from Scripture, since that was your initial line of criticism – “And I see plenty in the papal encyclicals not derived from Scripture.” The circle is complete.
LikeLike
James Young, well your claiming Lumen Gentium works two ways that puts you in a difficulty. First, it recommends the cult of Mary. What the hades is a cult? How can that be good?
Second, it also warns about letting the cult of Mary go too far? So why is the cult of Mary a problem unless the church has gotten carried away at times, like every time someone prays the Rosary:
Protestants pray straight to Jesus. Why don’t you? Doesn’t someone divine have a much better chance of hearing all those prayers than a finite creature? Can Mary really multi-task?
Sorry I can’t reproduce all the arguments for sola Scriptura in a comm box. Protestant resources for the doctrine are much more thorough than papal supremacy. Matt. 16:19. I get it. So much authority, one puny prooftext.
But the Protestant case for Sola Scriptura involves a set of inferences — surely you know about that; maybe you don’t since there are no scriptural inferences even for the Assumption of Mary.
The apostles were aware of a canon: 2 Pet. 3:16.
Paul says that all Scripture is inspired: 2 Tim. 3:16. You may also consult Warfield’s article on inspiration. Note that Paul does not say tradition is inspired. He doesn’t mention tradition.
Paul, an apostle remember, tells Timothy not to preach tradition but to preach the word of God. 2 Tim 4:2. Funny how Paul also warns that people won’t be content with the Word and will wander off into myths (think Assumption of Mary).
One more point: Paul rebuked Peter to his face Gal. 2:11. Looks like oral tradition erred, even that announced by the pope.
LikeLike
James Young, then again maybe Peter wasn’t Peter.
LikeLike
Interesting to see papists get all interested in Scripture texts when the Papa is at stake.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 26, 2015 at 8:29 am | Permalink
James Young, well your claiming Lumen Gentium works two ways that puts you in a difficulty. First, it recommends the cult of Mary. What the hades is a cult? How can that be good?
Second, it also warns about letting the cult of Mary go too far? So why is the cult of Mary a problem unless the church has gotten carried away at times, like every time someone prays the Rosary:
Holy Mary,
pray for us.
Holy Mother of God,
Holy Virgin of virgins,
Mother of Christ,
Mother of the Church,
Mother of divine grace,
Mother most pure,
Mother most chaste,
Mother inviolate,
Mother undefiled,
Mother most amiable,
Mother admirable,
Mother of good counsel,
Mother of our Creator,
Mother of our Saviour,
Mother of mercy,
Virgin most prudent,
Virgin most venerable,
Virgin most renowned,
Virgin most powerful,
Virgin most merciful,
Virgin most faithful,
Mirror of justice,
Seat of wisdom,
Cause of our joy,
Spiritual vessel,
Vessel of honour,
Singular vessel of devotion,
Mystical rose,
Tower of David,
Tower of ivory,
House of gold,
Ark of the covenant,
Gate of heaven,
Morning star,
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners,
Comfort of the afflicted,
Help of Christians,
Queen of Angels,
Queen of Patriarchs,
Queen of Prophets,
Queen of Apostles,
Queen of Martyrs,
Queen of Confessors,
Queen of Virgins,
Queen of all Saints,
Queen conceived without original sin,
Queen assumed into heaven,
Queen of the most holy Rosary,
Queen of families,
Queen of peace.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
graciously hear us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
Grant, we beseech thee,
O Lord God,
that we, your servants,
may enjoy perpetual health of mind and body;
and by the intercession of the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin,
may be delivered from present sorrow,
and obtain eternal joy.
Through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
Your ignorance of Catholicism is shocking and shameful, Dr. Hart. That’s not the Rosary.
LikeLike
vd, t, as you say “mebbe”. But then you aren’t monitoring the entire Roman Catholic world:
When the fifth mystery is completed, the Rosary is Customarily concluded with the Hail Holy Queen, and the Sign of the Cross.
LikeLike
vd, t, w, bt, way to stick to “the man.”
You’ve outdone yourself in speaking up for truth and virtue and the Christian faith.
LikeLike
‘It can seem a repetitive prayer but instead it is like two sweethearts who many times say one another the words: “I love you”.’
Evanjellyfish got nothin’ on the cult of the BVM.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 26, 2015 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
vd, t, as you say “mebbe”. But then you aren’t monitoring the entire Roman Catholic world:
When the fifth mystery is completed, the Rosary is Customarily concluded with the Hail Holy Queen, and the Sign of the Cross.
The Rosary is not what you printed, that lengthy litany is an “additional prayer.” It’s not the “Hail Holy Queen.” You’re still screwing up because all you’re looking for is something to discredit Catholicism with. That’s not cool, bro.
It’s fine if can’t get Catholicism, but your actual knowledge of it is wanting, and animus and ignorance is a bad combination. There’s loads of Christ in the Rosary. Christ is the subject, the focus, the end, not her: Mary is but the prism. From the official US Catholic Bishops site:
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/rosaries/how-to-pray-the-rosary.cfm
___________
*”Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, hail, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve: to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O merciful, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Amen.”
So now you know. Keep it clean. 😉
LikeLike
Tom,
Mary is but the prism.
This is wishful thinking, as evidenced by the popes… I’ve taken liberty of bolding the most blasphemous parts of this prayer, but the whole thing is wretched. Rome might try and “not worship” Mary, but prayers like this show what really happens with the cult of Mary:
PRAYER OF POPE PIUS XII This prayer, dedicated to Mary Immaculate, was composed by the Pope for the Marian Year (December 8, 1953-December 8, 1954), which was proclaimed to mark the centenary of the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
“Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty, and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, 0 Immacuate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary, confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Though degraded by our faults and overwhelmed by infinite misery, we admire and praise the peerless richness of sublime gifts with which God has filled you, above every other mere creature, from the first moment of your conception until the day on which, after your assumption into heaven, He crowned you Queen of the Universe.
O crystal fountain of faith, bathe our minds with the eternal truths! O fragrant Lily of all holiness, captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume! 0 Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin, which makes the soul detestable to God and a slave of hell!
O well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cry which rises up from every heart. Bend tenderly over our aching wounds. Convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed, comfort the poor and humble, quench hatreds, sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity in youth, protect the holy Church, make all men feel the attraction of Christian goodness. In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that they are brothers, and that the nations are members of one family, upon which may there shine forth the sun of a universal and sincere peace.
Receive, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications, and above all obtain for us that, one day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which today is sung on earth around your altars: You are all-beautiful, O Mary! You are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honor of our people! Amen.”
LikeLike
vd, t, do pray, or only kvetch about those who kvetch about Rome?
I was only going on what the website says: the Rosary is Customarily concluded with the Hail Holy Queen, and the Sign of the Cross.
So much clutter, so little knowing what happens among Roman Catholics.
LikeLike
Robert, sounds like a “cult,” like the way the magisterium described it.
LikeLike
Kult?
As in Keystone Kops?
Verily it is a klown show, as per all the special pleading for the Roman additions to the Word and worship of God.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 26, 2015 at 5:40 pm | Permalink
vd, t, do pray, or only kvetch about those who kvetch about Rome?
I was only going on what the website says: the Rosary is Customarily concluded with the Hail Holy Queen, and the Sign of the Cross.
So much clutter, so little knowing what happens among Roman Catholics.
Yes, but that long litany is not “Hail Holy Queen.” You know little of Catholicism and what you do know is wrong because you seek only error, not truth.
Bad show, Butch. Own it.
LikeLike
vd, t, great to have a commenter like you. You tell Presbyterians when they are wrong about Presbyterianism, Protestants when they are wrong about the Bible, conservatives when they are wrong about conservatism, patriots when they are wrong about America, and me when I’m wrong about Roman Catholicism.
Do you think, oh expert on Mary, that she would hear the Litany instead of Hail Holy Queen?
But also, since you think Mary is peripheral to the truth, do you think it will matter?
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke:
It’s fine if can’t get Catholicism, but your actual knowledge of it is wanting, and animus and ignorance is a bad combination. There’s loads of Christ in the Rosary. Christ is the subject, the focus, the end, not her: Mary is but the prism.>>>>>>
You are spot on in your post, Tom. In fact, the Rosary also involves petitioning God that he would develop certain Christian virtues in the person’s life – things like charity, faith, hope, zeal for souls, hospitality, submission to God’s will, tenderness to the needs of others, faithfulness to prayer, and so forth.
It is fairly easy to see what the Rosary really is, at least for anyone seeking the truth.
Sure, Protestants think it’s wrong to ask the saints for prayer, since the saints are dead and we should not pray to the dead.
What Catholics do is ask saints for prayer much as I might ask you or any other Christian to pray for me. They are not dead, but rather alive.
Mark 12:27
English Standard Version
He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 26, 2015 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
vd, t, great to have a commenter like you. You tell Presbyterians when they are wrong about Presbyterianism, Protestants when they are wrong about the Bible, conservatives when they are wrong about conservatism, patriots when they are wrong about America, and me when I’m wrong about Roman Catholicism.>>>>
Now, now, D.G. Hart, this is the Internet. Everyone presents his or her arguments and people decide if someone is wrong or right or worth listening to.
Not sure, since I’ve not read all of your posts, but it seems to me that you are trying to correct all kinds of people for all kinds of things.
There’s a cute joke about a little boy who was asked by a visitor to the Olympic Peninsula if it rained all the time there. The little boy said, “I don’t know sir. I’m only 5 years old.”
So, I don’t know if all your posts are critical of the beliefs of others, ‘cuz I’ve not been around here all that long.
You have your own special kind of charm, Brother Hart. I think that deep down, you want people to think, really think about what they believe. Maybe some of us want the same for you.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 26, 2015 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
vd, t, great to have a commenter like you. You tell Presbyterians when they are wrong about Presbyterianism, Protestants when they are wrong about the Bible, conservatives when they are wrong about conservatism, patriots when they are wrong about America, and me when I’m wrong about Roman Catholicism.
One of these things is not like the other, Dr. Hart.
You don’t know jackspit about Catholicism and you just proved it. You didn’t even know what praying the Rosary is. You just got straightened out.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
What Catholics do is ask saints for prayer much as I might ask you or any other Christian to pray for me. They are not dead, but rather alive.
Really. Name some living saints whom you make statues of and parade around town.
When was the last time you whipped out the church directory, lit a candle before the image of kindly Mrs. Smith and then went next door to ask her for prayer.
What about saintly Mr. Jones. Composing any “Hail Jonesys” in his honor.
The idea that all you are doing is asking them to pray is either dishonest or you really don’t know RC piety.
LikeLike
I haven’t visited Old Life much recently and hope, Darryl, you and your friends here have had lots of peace and joy over the last few months.
I note we are still reassuring ourselves that the Catholics are wrong.
‘Women’s issues’ interest me not a whit so I don’t have some unspoken wider agenda here, nor am I arguing for the Catholic perspective, but it’s probably true that the Reformed do not give Mary the respect that she deserves. When she is considered at all, it is as a naïve 15 year old, pretty much interchangeable with any other devout young woman of that or any time.
I’ve been a 15 year old female and observed many others. I cannot even imagine the spiritual maturity and devout submission that would be necessary for a teenager to respond to the angelic visitation with the words of the Magnificat.
Contrast her response with the response of another biblical character, whom we all rightly revere, when confronted with a challenging assignment. I’m thinking of a male, decades older, brought up with numerous advantages in a royal household, and given a clear instruction from God. His reply? “O God, can’t you find someone else?” Don’t you think the contrast is striking?
Deep within our anxious hearts I think there’s some resentment that a woman should have any kind of prominence. The mother of the Messiah must be female of course, by regrettable biological necessity, but we don’t owe her any kind of respect or anything. Don’t women have babies all the time?
I’m not arguing for her Assumption here. But in decades of Reformed church life I’ve never seen any eyebrows raised over Enoch’s being taken straight into heaven (he walked with God, and he was not, for God took him..) It seems to make sense that a man who lived in daily intimacy with God to a special degree should be translated into God’s presence. Perhaps we see heaven and fellowship with God as being more of a man-thing – kind of like an eternal Bayly blog suffused with golden light. But for the woman who formed the living environment of the Son of God and lived in daily intimacy with Him to be so translated – that just seems too ridiculous. (Thank you, Reformed friends, I know that Enoch’s assumption is in Scripture and not Mary’s. I’m not necessarily arguing for it.)
Mary risked her life and exposed herself to unimaginable sorrow. And we know Christ kept the fifth commandment perfectly. If he owed her honour, what makes us think we only owe her snide remarks and eye-rolling?
LikeLike
Robert
Posted July 27, 2015 at 12:00 am | Permalink
Mrs. Webfoot,
“What Catholics do is ask saints for prayer much as I might ask you or any other Christian to pray for me. They are not dead, but rather alive.”
Really. Name some living saints whom you make statues of and parade around town.
The saints are friends and family, you obnoxious piece of spit. Pray for yourself, then, because nobody else will, you poor suck.
LikeLike
Robert:
The idea that all you are doing is asking them to pray is either dishonest or you really don’t know RC piety.>>>>
It is possible that you are wrong. I am noticing more and more that the Catholics who participate here quote Scripture more often than the Protestants who claim to base all faith and practice on sola scriptura.
It would be good if you addressed Jesus’ words here. Are the saints who have passed into the presence of the Lord dead or alive?
Mark 12:27
English Standard Version
He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”
LikeLike
Am on a business trip in Miami, just checking in.
DG, I am quite surprised you didn’t know the difference between the Litany of the BVM and the Rosary. Find a liturgically traditional parish and learn something if you’re serious about criticizing.
mtx, ave you considered how much Francis’ homilies sound like Mr. Rogers?
1) “When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.”
First homily, 3/14/2013 – Text
2) “The Prince of this world, Satan, doesn’t want our holiness, he doesn’t want us to follow Christ. Maybe some of you might say: ‘But Father, how old fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21st century!’ But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here… even in the 21st century! And we mustn’t be naïve, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan.”
Homily on 4/10/2014 – Text
3) “[The Devil] attacks the family so much. That demon does not love it and seeks to destroy it. […] May the Lord bless the family. May He make it strong in this crisis, in which the devil wishes to destroy it.”
Homily, 6/1/2014 – Text
5) “Let us ask the Lord for the grace to take these things seriously. He came to fight for our salvation. He won against the devil! Please, let us not do business with the devil! He seeks to return home, to take possession of us… Do not relativize; be vigilant! And always with Jesus!”
Homily, 11/8/2013 – Text
6) “The presence of the devil is on the first page of the Bible, and the Bible ends as well with the presence of the devil, with the victory of God over the devil.”
Homily, 11/8/2013 – Text
7) “Either you are with me, says the Lord, or you are against me… [Jesus came] to give us the freedom… [from] the enslavement the devil has over us… On this point, there are no nuances. There is a battle and a battle where salvation is at play, eternal salvation. We must always be on guard, on guard against deceit, against the seduction of evil.”
Homily, 10/11/2013 – Text
8) “The devil plants evil where there is good, trying to divide people, families and nations. But God… looks into the ‘field’ of each person with patience and mercy: he sees the dirt and the evil much better than we do, but he also sees the seeds of good and patiently awaits their germination.”
Homily, 7/20/2014 – Text
10) “Note well how Jesus responds [to temptation]: He doesn’t dialogue with Satan, as Eve did in the terrestrial Paradise. Jesus knows well that one can’t dialogue with Satan, because he is so cunning. For this reason, instead of dialoguing, as Eve did, Jesus chooses to take refuge in the Word of God and to respond with the power of this Word. Let us remind ourselves of this in the moment of temptation…: not arguing with Satan, but defending ourselves with the Word of God. And this will save us.”
Angelus address, 3/9/2014 – Text
11) “We too need to guard the faith, guard it from darkness. Many times, however, it is a darkness under the guise of light. This is because the devil, as saint Paul, says, disguises himself at times as an angel of light.”
Homily, 1/6/2014 – Text
LikeLike
“jackspit”
I see what you did there.
LikeLike
Token woman,
But if you take Mary at what she said, and she didn’t say much, she magnified her Lord, not herself.
So what’s up with Christians who magnify her?
LikeLike
vd, t, since you don’t go to church or pray, why do you care?
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I am noticing more and more that the Catholics who participate here quote Scripture more often than the Protestants who claim to base all faith and practice on sola scriptura.”
Which proves why tradition is inadequate. Yet you can’t give up tradition without putting into question Mary, the papacy, the saints.
You’re in trouble.
LikeLike
Kevin, like you know the difference between the regulative principle and the third use of the law?
I get it. Pope Francis believes in the devil (which wasn’t on the first page of the Bible, hello). But is the devil anything more than the bully kid in the neighborhood? And is the devil more threatening to humanity than Laudato Si? If Francis says the Devil is responsible for climate change, now that’s arresting.
LikeLike
Mermaid, imagine Lutherans doing this with Luther’s grandmother:
LikeLike
Kevin, except Mr. Rogers wasn’t this much of a lefty:
Rivals Russell Conwell’s Acres of Diamonds.
LikeLike
Tom,
The saints are friends and family,
Translation: I, Tom, don’t have a good reason why RCs don’t build statues of living people or parade them around or give them exalted titles or do any of the veneration that proves RCs aren’t merely asking someone who has passed on to pray for them.
you obnoxious piece of spit.
So I’ll deflect with an ad hominem, while I stay home yet again from mass
Pray for yourself, then, because nobody else will, you poor suck.
And your church is supposed to be big on love?
But thank you for proving that what RCs are doing with the saints is far more than just asking them to pray for us like they’d ask someone else who hasn’t passed on.
LikeLike
Mrs. Webfoot,
It is possible that you are wrong. I am noticing more and more that the Catholics who participate here quote Scripture more often than the Protestants who claim to base all faith and practice on sola scriptura.
Sure it’s possible that I am wrong that all RCs are doing is asking a saint in heaven to pray for them just as they’d ask a Christian on earth. But where’s the evidence. I’ve specifically asked why, if what you are doing is no different than asking a fellow parishioner to pray for you, don’t you erect statues of them, hold feast days in their honor, etc. etc.
It would be good if you addressed Jesus’ words here. Are the saints who have passed into the presence of the Lord dead or alive?
They are most certainly alive. In fact, in one sense they are more alive than we are because they are in God’s presence. In another sense, they can be seen as less alive since they don’t possess a physical body and won’t until the resurrection.
It’s a huge jump, however, to go from “the saints in heaven are alive” to “therefore, we should ask them to pray for us.” You have to assume so many things even before you get to the biblical evidence:
1. You have to attribute a kind of omniscience to them. Millions of people are praying to Mary all at once; how can she hear them all.
2. You have to assume that the saints in heaven are absorbed with what is going on down here. The evidence for that isn’t crystal clear.
3. You have to assume that God is more apt to grant a prayer if a saint in heaven prays it than if you pray it.
And then we get to the extensive biblical evidence that we are not to contact those who have passed on even if they are still alive. There are no positive examples of this in Scripture, and plenty of teaching against it.
And then we have to wrestle with the fact that Mary, in particular, has been elevated far beyond what we actually know about her. Frankly, outside of the infancy narratives and being among the first visitors to the tomb of Jesus, she is largely irrelevant to the Gospels, never mentioned by name in the Epistles. The best you can do outside of the Gospels and her appearance in the early chapters of Acts is point to the woman and the dragon in Revelation, but even the US Council of Catholic Bishops don’t interpret the woman there as Mary.
And then, when we ask where the Apostles teach all this stuff outside of Scripture, we get crickets. So for something that is so essential to Christian piety, we get complete silence from the Apostles. And we’re supposed to be impressed with the necessity of Marian and saintly devotion? I’m sorry, but it beggars belief.
LikeLike
In your earlier queries you asked for “proof texts”. Note that “derived from scripture” does not mean “contained in a proof text”. The case for sola scriptura arises in part from
1) the example of our Savior’s use of scripture to correct the traditions of the legitimate religious authorities of the day
2) the recognition that while God is eternal king and will thus never be without subjects so that the church will always exists, local manifestations of the church can go seriously astray (hence Paul’s warning Romans about the threat to the ingrafted covenant community, his pastoral epistles warning about false teaching among the believers, and John’s evisceration of the seven churches in Rev.).
3) In the pastoral epistles and Peter’s letters we see that apostolic writing was already seen as scripture and that this scripture is sufficient.
4) From the example of Christ we are shown that the way to know which traditions are valid and which are not are by the degree to which they conform to scripture.
5) We are warned both in the gospels and the epistles about “burdening” people with extra scriptural traditions – these burdens must be judged against scripture.
So based on the warnings in scripture, it should be of no surprise that Christians would be tempted to make the same mistake as their forebears and that some churches would fall because those mistakes compounded and they refused to correct them. Since all churches always teach a mixture of truth and error, the fact that traditions went astray does not in itself invalidate those churches, but eventually you cross a line where you cease to be a legitimate expression of a local church (even if individuals within that congregation are true believers). It is my judgment and that of those in the reformed tradition more generally, that Rome is such a church. To many extra biblical burdens are imposed, traditions not found in scripture obscure the gospel (and you can draw whatever theoretical distinctions you want between veneration and worship, but you cannot look at folk treatments of saint veneration and not see the serious problems with syncretism and full out worship of saints and Mary), and some that explicitly contradict scripture (such as prohibition of speaking to the dead).
Now you might disagree with our exegetical analysis of the Bible. Fair enough, but it is not true that Sola Scriptura does not itself rest on the testimony of scripture or that this principle is somehow necessarily circular. One of the things I’ve really appreciated about interacting with KiN and mtx is that while they have maintained an irenic tone in our conversation, they have made the stakes quite clear. If I am wrong, I am in eternal trouble – it isn’t about mounting a better defense of the GOP. If I am right, they are in eternal trouble. This isn’t about winning a culture war (I’m looking at you mwf and tvd), having a superior intellectual paradigm (I’m looking at you Susan), or winning the internet (are you still lurking Ken?), it is about the eternal destiny of our souls.
A commbox is a terrible place to hash these things out in detail – particularly when there are experts who have done a much better job. I’ve outlined the case for Sola Scriptura and how it calls into question certain traditions that have had pernicious side effects (that your own pope has warned about). To be sure a comprehensive case would require filling in a lot more details, if you think this could potentially be a worthwhile thing to investigate, there are plenty of resources to look into. If not, I don’t see the point of beating this dead horse any further.
@mtx – if you are reading this, I’m going to be swamped over the next few weeks and can’t afford much time here. I’ll probably checkin from time to time, but not enough to definitely catch your posts.
LikeLike
sdb,
“the example of our Savior’s use of scripture to correct the traditions of the legitimate religious authorities of the day”
Right. Which Rome affirms. So this doesn’t get you SS or any of the 5 doctrines. Christ condemning corrupt unwritten tradition does not entail he condemns all unwritten tradition as corrupt and not binding.
“the recognition that while God is eternal king and will thus never be without subjects so that the church will always exists, local manifestations of the church can go seriously astray (hence Paul’s warning Romans about the threat to the ingrafted covenant community, his pastoral epistles warning about false teaching among the believers, and John’s evisceration of the seven churches in Rev.).”
Right. Which Rome affirms (local manifestations have gone seriously astray in every heresy). So this doesn’t get you SS or any of the 5 doctrines.
“In the pastoral epistles and Peter’s letters we see that apostolic writing was already seen as scripture and that this scripture is sufficient.”
The pastoral epistles and Peter’s letters that had to be recognized as Scripture first. So this doesn’t get you SS or any of the 5 doctrines. Nor does “sufficient” entail formal sufficiency of SS. Nor could it, since SS wasn’t operative during times of inscripturation, by definition.
“From the example of Christ we are shown that the way to know which traditions are valid and which are not are by the degree to which they conform to scripture.”
The example you got from the identification of those examples as Scripture. Further, this line of argument would entail the entire NT is superfluous and Christ/Apostles were OT SS’ists.
“We are warned both in the gospels and the epistles about “burdening” people with extra scriptural traditions – these burdens must be judged against scripture.”
Like the extra scriptural tradition of SS that has burdened 500 years of Christianity. Tradition is judged against Scripture as interpreted in the church – Rome agrees Tradition is not a lord over Scripture – they function in parallel and mutually support each other.
“Since all churches always teach a mixture of truth and error,”
Did the Council of Jerusalem teach a mixture of truth and error? Did the church when it came to identify the canon? Did the Protestant church when it formulated SS?
LikeLike
Cletus, (James)
Did the Council of Jerusalem teach a mixture of truth and error? Did the church when it came to identify the canon? Did the Protestant church when it formulated SS?
Surely you know that the understanding that all churches teach a mixture of truth and error does not entail that every single teaching of every church is a mixture of truth and error. It’s quite possible for the church to be right on the canon and wrong on episcopal authority, or right at the council of Jerusalem and wrong at 2 Nicaea.
The point is that we don’t give anyone a pass simply because they say “Here we go, this’ll be infallible:….”
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Sorry I can’t reproduce all the arguments for sola Scriptura in a comm box.”
I’m not asking you to reproduce Whitaker – let’s not exaggerate. But if you’re going to claim anything binding must be derived from Scripture, it shouldn’t be difficult to offer some starting Scripture, especially for these foundational doctrines. I don’t see such hesitation to Scriptural appeals when it comes to you going on about 2k or sola fide.
“Protestant resources for the doctrine are much more thorough than papal supremacy. Matt. 16:19. I get it. So much authority, one puny prooftext.”
That’s one. There are more of course. And of course there are volumes and volumes written in defense of the papacy, just as there is with SS – but you see how easy it was for you to at least offer a starting Scripture.
“But the Protestant case for Sola Scriptura involves a set of inferences”
Same with the papacy btw. I understand it involves a set of inferences. That doesn’t mean Scriptural support is superfluous – you can’t derive something from Scripture without at least appealing to it in some way – that would empty the act of “derivation” of all meaning.
“The apostles were aware of a canon: 2 Pet. 3:16.”
Sure. I asked for the identification of the extent and scope of the canon, not the existence of a canon. So this won’t suffice.
“Paul says that all Scripture is inspired: 2 Tim. 3:16. You may also consult Warfield’s article on inspiration. Note that Paul does not say tradition is inspired. He doesn’t mention tradition.”
And Rome agrees Scripture is inspired. So this doesn’t get you SS. Nor could it since SS wasn’t operative when Paul was writing that, by definition, so he could not have intended such. And Paul never mentions tradition in his letters or claims it is binding and to be followed?
“Paul, an apostle remember, tells Timothy not to preach tradition but to preach the word of God. 2 Tim 4:2. ”
Lovely (and unargued for) conflation of the word of God with Scripture. The word of God was transferred both in unwritten and written form when Paul was working with Timothy.
1 Tim. 3:14-15 – Paul prefers to speak personally with Timothy but is writing only because he is delayed – hardly a ringing endorsement of SS
2 Tim. 2:2 – Paul passing on unwritten tradition and commanding it be similarly passed on – no indication it is to be written down at some point
2 Tim. 1:13, 2 Timothy 3:10, 2 Tim. 3:14 – more appeal to unwritten Tradition
2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 – Paul exhorting Timothy to continue to preach and proclaim the Word, not write it down, and this even in the context of the end of his life – a perfect time we would expect for SS to come to the fore but we get the opposite.
This of course does not even go into the many affirmations of unwritten Tradition Paul makes in his other writings, but since you appealed to 2 Timothy I figured I’d confine myself.
“Funny how Paul also warns that people won’t be content with the Word and will wander off into myths (think Assumption of Mary).”
Or think SS and semper reformanda.
“Paul rebuked Peter to his face Gal. 2:11. Looks like oral tradition erred, even that announced by the pope.”
Yep popes and their practices have been rebuked by others in the past – not news to RCism. That doesn’t get you SS, nor does it get you that the council of Jerusalem’s decision wasn’t an SS-based one.
So I’m still waiting for a demonstration those 5 doctrines can be derived from Scripture so they don’t fall prey to the same criticism you’re applying to RCism.
LikeLike
James Young “Tradition is judged against Scripture as interpreted in the church – Rome agrees Tradition is not a lord over Scripture – they function in parallel and mutually support each other”
Except they don’t. Scripture doesn’t support the bodily assumption of Mary. Scripture doesn’t support single clergy. The list goes on.
Just wave the hand. No problems. Church is great (though going to hades) and theology all adds up (even though half the bishops don’t teach it and the universities don’t give it a whiff).
All good in Austin (where things are weird all the time).
LikeLike
Clete,
Right. Which Geneva affirms. So this doesn’t get you magisterial infallibility or any of the thousands of de fide doctrines.
That’s not true. Peter didn’t tell the recipients of the letter that Paul’s letters were Scripture because he said they were—he simply acknowledge what was already true of them. Your best theologians already concede this point.
That’s stretching it. Sola Scriptura is the claim that only Scripture contains the Word of God in totality. Thus, since Scripture is the only place that God’s Word is infallible ensconced, therefore it is the sole infallible source for the people of God. The church is given the authority to minister the Word of God, but she is not equal with the Word of God.
Sola Scriptura is no less than the ancient Jewish and Apostolic practice of “not going beyond what is written in Scripture.” In that way, the Magisterium is the new kid on the block and the development of ecclesial infallibility took centuries to develop. Papal infallibility is roughly 350 years younger than SS (if I’m willing to concede your contestable assumptions about the early church) so I’m not sure you want to go down that road.
LikeLike
Brandon, “Magisterium is the new kid on the block and the development of ecclesial infallibility took centuries to develop.”
You mean like the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon?
LikeLike
Sdb,
@mtx – if you are reading this, I’m going to be swamped over the next few weeks and can’t afford much time here. I’ll probably checkin from time to time, but not enough to definitely catch your posts.
Just read this. I posted over in When Did Christian Amer… Get back whenever you can sdb. I most definately agree that these points are of eternal consequences. If the Catholic Church is not Christ’s Church I am an idolater worshiping a piece of bread and nothing more.
Scripture teaches no idolater will enter heaven, but instead will be cast into the lake of fire. I knew this before entering the Catholic Church. Don’t think I didn’t study and pray intently about these things, sdb. I had the full hearted prayer that God would kill me before I entered the Catholic Church if it was not His Church. I don’t believe these things are games. God be with you. I’ll be watching mainly over in the other thread. Peace,
Michael
LikeLike
Tom,
Your tone is getting a bit out of line. Shape up some if you wish to defend the cause of Christ. You are not helping if you can’t. The devil is quite smart, but he has no love nor desire for mercy. Watch your path.
LikeLike
MichaelTX
Posted July 27, 2015 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Your tone is getting a bit out of line. Shape up some if you wish to defend the cause of Christ. You are not helping if you can’t. The devil is quite smart, but he has no love nor desire for mercy. Watch your path.
You’re right, and I apologize to all here gathered. And to Robert especially.
As for Christ, I don’t claim to speak for him or for his “cause,” only for the cause of honesty and accuracy, which are sometimes in very short supply here. I defend all sorts of religious beliefs, such as Mormonism, even if I don’t share them.
LikeLike
DG-
Kevin, like you know the difference between the regulative principle and the third use of the law? – no, but I would look them up and ask a few questions before building an argument based on them. Otherwise I’d be embarrassing myself. I’ll look them up during the next telecom presentation.
I get it. Pope Francis believes in the devil (which wasn’t on the first page of the Bible, hello).
He’s at his best when he talks like a preacher to Argentine peasants. I thought about deleting that one since I figured someone would call that out, but it gives a sense of the types of rhetorical flourishes which come from his Weltanschauung– and life experience.
But is the devil anything more than the bully kid in the neighborhood?
Bully kids can be reformed, and become allies.
And is the devil more threatening to humanity than Laudato Si? If Francis says the Devil is responsible for climate change, now that’s arresting.
How is Laudato Si threatening to humanity? Cooperation with the Devil results in evil- small and large.
Kevin, except Mr. Rogers wasn’t this much of a lefty:
Not quite sure what you mean – I think the quotes you provided should simply be given a traditional Christian exegesis. Charity isn’t always in our short term economic interest and points to our eternal destiny; Jesus not only fed the masses with loaves and fish, but brought them God.
“We surely have some time, some kind of talent, some kind of expertise,” he added. “Who among us does not have their ‘five loaves and two fishes’? We all have it! If we are willing to place it in the Lord’s hands, it would be enough so that in the world there would be a bit more love, peace, justice, and above all, joy.”
It’s rather sunny, but what’s wrong with that quote? If we consciously do our work for the sake of the Lord, with reference to Jesus, e.g. liturgical music or journalism or aligning public and private interests to implement the rollout of broadband in underserved countries to promote economic development, the world can without doubt be more peaceful and people, less distracted, can spend more time growing as Christians.
Rivals Russell Conwell’s Acres of Diamonds. – Never heard ofi it, I’ll look it up.
LikeLike
Glad to be of service, Tom. God bless,
Michael
LikeLike
Kevin, I’ll take Leo XIII over any post 1960 pope. But at least you don’t have Alexander VI (for now — who knows what the butlers know?).
LikeLike
DG-
The RCC has certainly had some rotten popes. If the next one chooses Leo or Pius or Innocent (not likely, that last), it would be a great sign. Some other names, not so much.
~ Although my personal choice (if we really must make everything up as we go along, which of course we oughtn’t) would be for Pope Paul IV II. ~
But why would a more disciplined RCC be a positive to you? I’m not asking this in bad faith – but given Reformed beliefs on RC worship alone (i.e., other issues aside, such as birth control and the desire for the state to no more than tolerate of other religions), shouldn’t you want it to fail as an institution?
It makes me think of Karl Marx’s pronounced love for Capitalism as a destructive force which would result in a revolution for the betterment of society.
Does the RCC need to win the approval of Bob S and Bruce before most Reformed theologians (the best ones, in your estimation) would find it acceptable?
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’m no expert on the doctrine of Mary in any denomination and can’t answer for anyone else. But Paul told the Philippians to honour those who risk their lives for the cause of Christ, and I suspect a lot of Reformed people have some trouble with doing that. That might be partly a result of the theological principle which sees everyone as naturally equally lost and miserable, and then the elect as all equally justified and guaranteed to persevere. And of course this is very important, but it has a ‘flattening’ effect on the two populations. And then by happy coincidence we live in a culture where everyone is special, there is no aristocracy, no-one has the right to tell anyone what to do, every vote is of equal value, every view is equally true (whatever ‘true’ is), authority is suspect, and so on. But there are words of Christ in the NT which convey something a bit more hierarchical to me. (‘Those places are not mine to grant – they belong to those for whom they have been prepared’; ‘you who have followed me will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes’…) Maybe heaven is less democratic than modern westerners assume. There are archangels as well as angels, after all.
LikeLike
Kevin, it matters only because of the false view of the church rendered by convert/apologists. They keep telling evangelicals who want something more than evangelicalism that Rome is solid. Hah!
LikeLike
Token Mary, and this applies to Mary, how?
LikeLike
DG-
Protecting the good as you see it- keeping people Reformed. Makes sense. But aren’t you concerned a Catholic revival under a strong and saintly pope could lead to still more conversions?
I take Laudato Si to be an imperfect document, yet one not fundamentally about the environment, but man’s spiritual state and how poisoned it is today compared to how it could be through a fuller embracing of Christ, with God’s creation being just one area impacted.
A Leo XIII revision of this approach could (would, I expect) bring more to the RCC than the post-VII approach has. Especially a serious, sustained look at economic issues. Francis raises many of the relevant points, but tries I think to be too accommodating to contemporary attitudes toward money and politics.
LikeLike
Kevin, I’d rather Protestants know what they are getting, say with Vatican 1, than some we’re old, we’re conservative, and we’re cool, we’ve adapted, this is not your Protestant grandfather’s church. Honesty, please. But that’s hard with Vatican 2, and it’s just as hard as it was for the PCUSA still affirming the Westminster Confession.
Laudato Si doesn’t sound spiritual:
Nor do the points about Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Water.
LikeLike
Hart,
I’m a much more Leo XIII & Pius X fan myself, but trying to say Francis has no spirituality in Laudato Si in it just take reading it. I have been reading over it since we last chatted about it.
216. The rich heritage of Christian spirituality, the fruit of twenty centuries of personal and communal experience, has a precious contribution to make to the renewal of humanity. Here, I would like to offer Christians a few suggestions for an ecological spirituality grounded in the convictions of our faith, since the teachings of the Gospel have direct consequences for our way of thinking, feeling and living. More than in ideas or concepts as such, I am interested in how such a spirituality can motivate us to a more passionate concern for the protection of our world. A commitment this lofty cannot be sustained by doctrine alone, without a spirituality capable of inspiring us, without an “interior impulse which encourages, motivates, nourishes and gives meaning to our individual and communal activity”.[151] Admittedly, Christians have not always appropriated and developed the spiritual treasures bestowed by God upon the Church, where the life of the spirit is not dissociated from the body or from nature or from worldly realities, but lived in and with them, in communion with all that surrounds us.
217. “The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast”.[152] For this reason, the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion. It must be said that some committed and prayerful Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule expressions of concern for the environment. Others are passive; they choose not to change their habits and thus become inconsistent. So what they all need is an “ecological conversion”, whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.
LikeLike
mtx, explain away for the one whom you’re supposed to be relying on for explanations.
But the substance of the encyclical is the description of world problems that Pope Francis addresses. They are all material.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Just wave the hand. No problems.”
Like you keep doing with the 5 doctrines and your inconsistent criticism about deriving binding teaching from Scripture? You at least made an attempt to justify (some) of them Scripturally. I addressed them.
Brandon,
“Right. Which Geneva affirms. So this doesn’t get you magisterial infallibility or any of the thousands of de fide doctrines.”
Can you get your cohorts on the same page? They seem to think that because Christ condemns some unwritten tradition and appeals to Scripture, that nullifies a non-SS view of tradition and gets you SS. It doesn’t, no more than corrupt gospels and apocryphal literature and spurious apostolic writings would get one sola unwritten tradition.
“That’s not true. Peter didn’t tell the recipients of the letter that Paul’s letters were Scripture because he said they were—he simply acknowledge what was already true of them.”
Sure, and his acknowledgement is part of what helps the church identify those letters as Scripture, which is why you’re appealing to Peter in the first place in response to my question. Regardless, this doesn’t get you the scope and extent of the canon, so this won’t suffice.
“That’s stretching it.”
I fail to see why. A manmade tradition – SS – that has fractured Christianity endlessly and wrenched Scripture and its authority from its proper context and community and dismissed God’s purposes in providing the church and tradition as guardian and parallel authorities is a burden. A manmade tradition – semper reformanda – that constantly reinvents the wheel and invites heresies to surface again and again is a burden. Eph 4:14.
“Sola Scriptura is the claim that only Scripture contains the Word of God in totality.”
Right so can you support this claim from Scripture?
“The church is given the authority to minister the Word of God, but she is not equal with the Word of God.”
Rome never claimed she is equal with the Word of God. She does claim to have divine and apostolic authority, which Protestantism rejects, hence semper reformanda.
“Sola Scriptura is no less than the ancient Jewish and Apostolic practice of “not going beyond what is written in Scripture.””
First, Rome does not claim her teachings are contrary to Scripture. So you’re claiming Jews before and during Christ were OT SS’ists? And again the apostolic practice could not have been SS by definition, as revelation was still ongoing, as even anti-Catholic apologists on your own side freely agree such as James White.
“In that way, the Magisterium is the new kid on the block”
If SS is the old kid on the block, odd that both Rome and EO reject it then.
LikeLike
James Young, see Protestants do it too.
What a great defense. I thought Rome was superior.
LikeLike
@hart
And Jesus provided material bread and fish when he feed the five thousand. Take your beef up with him that day.
LikeLike
mtx, how do you know Jesus fed the five thousand?
LikeLike
Because the inerrant Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures written by eye witnesses attest to the event. Why would you think I believe for some other reason?
LikeLike
dg-
But the substance of the encyclical is the description of world problems that Pope Francis addresses. They are all material.
Well, you can assert whatever you like but an impartial reviewer couldn’t come to that conclusion. It isn’t stated authorial intention, the spiritual is highlighted at the points of summation, and the material is introduced to demonstrate the impact of the fruits of not following Christ.
In a lengthy document, calling lengthy supporting passages the substance isn’t fair. What is fair is to say that it goes on a rather a lot without repeated statements tying it back to the main theme. Leo wrote short, tight encyclicals in comparison.
That said, Francis is a man with a job- and this is the approach he has selected. We are all free to offer fair criticism of that approach, although we ought to do so respectful of his office and our own stations in life.
I’m not thrilled with some of the novel vocabulary, although I believe I understand his purpose in introducing it- to cause people to rethink issues they believe are settled and arrive at the truth. It may or may not become a permanent part of the vocabulary of the RCC and culture generally.
I’m not sure why anyone would think this touches on infallibility. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find Francis departing from the Catechism.
LikeLike
DG –
I’d rather Protestants know what they are getting, say with Vatican 1, […] But that’s hard with Vatican 2.
I get it, and basically agree. Had Vatican I not been interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War, we would have had a full constitution on the Church rather than just Papal Infallibility defined.
I think that the Vatican I interruption has resulted in a sort of “Spirit of Vatican I” when it comes to Papal Infallibility, although it is mostly the RCC’s detractors who seem to have fallen for it, if you like. Arguably a large slice of American Catholics as well as (perhaps counter-intuitively) Sedevacantists.
The VII preparatory schemata (or “schemas” for linguistic Hellenophobes) were much clearer than what finally got passed. I’ve not made a close study, but I believe they were almost identical to the docs contemplated during Vatican I. It’s a shame, to put it mildly, that the modernists at VII tossed them out.
They make a good read: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/421-original-vatican-ii-schemas.html
LikeLike
Because the inerrant Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures written by eye witnesses attest to the event. Why would you think I believe for some other reason?
Because somebody (we won’t say who) keeps touting the necessity of the authoritative infallible Romish traditions alongside Scripture.
Who also told us:
We just mainly think of generational passing of traditions. Paul in 1 Cor 15:3 says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
The irony meter just redlined.
Here we have one of our expert ex prot papists again telling us that traditions are all about what we . . . read in Scripture, namely 1 Cor. 15 where Paul tells us twice that “according to the scriptures” Christ died for our sins, was buried and raised on the third day.
As for ‘appearing to Cephas and then the twelve, well, we only know that infallibly because Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15, i.e. Scripture, not tradition. (Never mind the anachronism-word/concept fallacy where tradition does not mean teaching or doctrine according to Scripture, but Rome’s traditions.)
Well yeah, the apostles handed them on by word and writing, until wonder of wonders the apostles died and couldn’t do either anymore.
So what happen then? God had a plan to preserve his word previously revealed by word of mouth by . . .wait for it . . . . writing it down in the words of the Old and New Testament.
Without which we cannot have faith; without which we cannot please God and as a consequence sin. Rom. 10:17, Heb.11:6, Rom. 14:23.
IOW Sola Scriptura.
As if Jesus, quoting the OT, did not really say “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matt.4:4
And if he really did say that, he meant traditions.
[Who also told us this:
Get back to me when you actually want to deal with the history and exegesis of the text. Then maybe we could move on to next steps. I don’t bring these up for my own good, Hart. Peace,
Jerk]
Well, you can assert whatever you like but an impartial reviewer couldn’t come to that conclusion.
Pretty much sums up the response to the Roman arguments here for tradition.
Divine authority entails accuracy, but accuracy does not entail divine authority.
This from Catholicus Von Devious (who double down on his nickname by acknowledging that he knew of Whitaker, but still wanted to bring up objections W had answered).
Evidently when somebody accurately quotes, let’s say, the first, second or third commandment, there is no divine authority attached to those commandments? Rather only if the pope or Mary recites them do we have to accord divine authority?
IOW truth is not truth unless it’s from the ecclesiastically correct horse’s
assmouth.Now, we’re getting somewhere and and the bigotry and incoherence is getting hard to hide.
LikeLike
Kevin, not sure you’re all that impartial yourself:
Sounds material.
LikeLike
Robert, Bob S,
1. You have to attribute a kind of omniscience to them. Millions of people are praying to Mary all at once; how can she hear them all.
2. You have to assume that the saints in heaven are absorbed with what is going on down here. The evidence for that isn’t crystal clear.
3. You have to assume that God is more apt to grant a prayer if a saint in heaven prays it than if you pray it.
We share in membership of Christ’s body- I think the burden would be on demonstrating they did not care for us. Regarding the logistical issues, they have glorified bodies- the medieval scholastics loved these puzzles, and to the satisfaction of contemporary Christians largely solved them.
Does Scripture not support that those who love the Lord are more likely to be heard by him? Can’t check references now. We appeal to God, at least at times, on the basis of our faithfullness to him. Seems to me those he loves best would have a stronger relationship.
And then, when we ask where the Apostles teach all this stuff outside of Scripture, we get crickets. So for something that is so essential to Christian piety, we get complete silence from the Apostles.
Bob S raised this, too. The answer is the tradition of the Church- the early Christological definitions, the Filioque; if you need me specifically to look up intercession of the saints, I can’t now, but just check the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.
Otherwise, what type of response could possibly satisfy? If it must be Apostolic and extra Scriptural, yet you’ll accept nothing outside of Scripture, you’ve presented a request with a built-in contradiction.
LikeLike
DG-
You’re suggesting the Governor of California is impartial? The modus operandii of almost every politician I know is to twist things of value to the constituents to accomplish the goals of special interests.
LikeLike
Brandon-
1000s of de fide doctrines? Ott has nowhere near that many, and that’s the most comprehensive I know. Source?
Robert-
Follk piety, including of the saints, is a separate issue from theology and Catechised expressions of the faith. It is fully compatible, and I love processions and litanies of the saints, but even in cases of well intentioned departure (which I do not grant is widespread) it is not normative.
Theology needs to be addressed and taken seriously as truth claims with real consequences- this isn’t sociology.
LikeLike
Kevin in Newark wears a flat cap and just used the phrase “It is fully compatible…”
Bryan Cross 2.0??
LikeLike
Bob,
“Well yeah, the apostles handed them on by word and writing, until wonder of wonders the apostles died and couldn’t do either anymore. So what happen then? God had a plan to preserve his word previously revealed by word of mouth by . . .wait for it . . . . writing it down in the words of the Old and New Testament.”
Still has not been demonstrated, merely assumed. You already agree the pattern of transmission included both writing and unwritten tradition. Then you assert God’s plan was to preserve all the unwritten tradition by converting it into writing (and any that wasn’t converted must be unnecessary or redundant). That’s an assertion in search of an argument – you jumped from A to C without providing B. God could have planned to preserve unwritten tradition through apostolic succession and the church – that the apostles died does not entail SS.
“Without which we cannot have faith; without which we cannot please God and as a consequence sin. Rom. 10:17, Heb.11:6, Rom. 14:23.
IOW Sola Scriptura.”
What? How on earth do those verses demonstrate SS?
LikeLike
Kevin,
We share in membership of Christ’s body- I think the burden would be on demonstrating they did not care for us. Regarding the logistical issues, they have glorified bodies- the medieval scholastics loved these puzzles, and to the satisfaction of contemporary Christians largely solved them.
The issue isn’t whether they care for us; the issue is demonstrating that they are paying attention to what is going on here. It’s a minor point, to be sure. The kicker for me is really the omniscience issue.
If a saint with a glorified body is suddenly omniscient, which is essentially what they would have to be to hear all those prayers at once, the saint is no longer human. That’s the problem. The jump from one ontological category—humanity—to another, deity.
Does Scripture not support that those who love the Lord are more likely to be heard by him? Can’t check references now. We appeal to God, at least at times, on the basis of our faithfullness to him. Seems to me those he loves best would have a stronger relationship.
In one sense, yes. But praying to the saints is presented here as just like us asking another person to pray for us, but in RC piety, the sense is often “Ask Mary, God really likes to listen to her much more than you or the rest of you peons.”
Bob S raised this, too. The answer is the tradition of the Church- the early Christological definitions, the Filioque; if you need me specifically to look up intercession of the saints, I can’t now, but just check the Catholic Encyclopedia at new advent.
Did Peter give us the Christological definition of one person in two natures? Or Paul? Or did they give us the filioque.
The answer, of course, is no. Those things are deducible from Scripture but they are not themselves apostolic tradition. Paul never said homoousios. That’s the issue.
Otherwise, what type of response could possibly satisfy? If it must be Apostolic and extra Scriptural, yet you’ll accept nothing outside of Scripture, you’ve presented a request with a built-in contradiction.
I could accept something outside of Scripture if it had decent provenance and was supportable. But Rome doesn’t provide that. It provides an ever growing tradition whereby what it says today is Apostolic tradition even if the Apostles themselves never said it.
All I’m looking for are the words of Peter or Paul or someone to the effect of “You should pray to Mary.” Did the Apostles teach that or not, and if so, where? Which church father can tell us that Peter said this at Ephesus just before his death, or something like that. Vague “the church has always done this” is insufficient.
We get that it wasn’t written down. What I’m looking for is actual teaching from the Apostles that can be verified by witnesses. The only thing I know of that fits that category is the New Testament. Maybe there is more. Where is it?
LikeLike
Bob S,
Don’t think I was being a jerk. Clear and firm? Yes. If someone is expecting responses they should be be willing to respond. Hart is the one who implied my exegesis of Gal 2 was off and kept avoiding clarifying. Still hasn’t has he? Still hasn’t said he could be wrong about my position on believing SS is a manmade tradition not taught or practiced in Scrpture being oxymoronic. Not made a case for his reasons in saying it. I just expect meat on a statement when someone makes one against my view, because I don’t want to have a faulty position; therefore am willing to hear the argument against it. Yours are difficult for me to hear because of how harshly you present them. It seems you assume a poor intent to know the truth in my heart. This makes things harder. I’m not a doctrine, Bob. I’m a person. I’m allowed and taught by Christ to dust my feet off when needed.
LikeLike
Kevin, but its from a Roman Catholic website. Now you’re telling Protestants that we need to check with you and vd,t before we go on the world wide web?
LikeLike
mtx, so if I concede that SS is a manmade position, will you do the same with papal infallibility?
This RC apologetic that you guys are just as bad as we are is surely odd.
We need to fight the Soviets because they are just as tyrannical as we are. That’ll work.
LikeLike
I’m at a telecom conference and am hearing a lot about compatibility- in short, processions are seriously fun ways to celebrate the faith in common –
If you don’t like the way I’ve put things, I could also say processions are a form of communal reaction to divine love arising from essential human sensory and cognitive capacities and the fundamentally communal nature of worship, resulting in exuberance in those whose characters are not de-tuned to such and a consciousness best described as the Crusading Spirit, yet nevertheless flourishing within the same theological ecosystem as sober reflection and private prayer, and indeed through their training of our legitimate desires for excitement and play, contributing in an irreplacable manner to the ostensibly more serious components of the Christian life through God’s tender provision for all aspects of humanity as a part of his Incarnational plan for the redemption and sanctification of the world.
And apologies for the typos, the hat was my grandfather’s, the photo was taken during a happy vacation in Madrid with my wife, I have no idea who Bryan Cross is, and am not sure why his name keeps coming up. If you like my hat, connect with me on LinkedIn.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 29, 2015 at 4:31 pm | Permalink
Kevin, but its from a Roman Catholic website. Now you’re telling Protestants that we need to check with you and vd,t before we go on the world wide web?
Considering how badly you screwed up on the Rosary, It’s not a bad idea. 😉
LikeLike
Kevin, but its from a Roman Catholic website. Now you’re telling Protestants that we need to check with you and vd,t before we go on the world wide web?
Does it bear an imprimatur? Even if it did, you’d have to use your own knowledge and intellect. If you’re short on knowledge, check with those who know more- I do it all the time.
I expect you’d agree that ultimately our own stores of knowledge and opinions, and reputations as well count for very little in comparison with faith, hope – and charity.
LikeLike
Hart,
Don’t concede anything you don’t think is true. I’ve been asking is that if you are not willing to show my position false, do not call it oxymoronic. If Sola Scriptura is right the infallibility of the Catholic Church is out. This would include the infallibility of the pope that is stated Catholic dogma by a ecumenical council.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted July 29, 2015 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
“Without which we cannot have faith; without which we cannot please God and as a consequence sin. Rom. 10:17, Heb.11:6, Rom. 14:23.
IOW Sola Scriptura.”
What? How on earth do those verses demonstrate SS?
I see this technique all the time, hiding the argument behind a list of verses. But when you take the time to look them up
much less read them in context
You’re like, ¿huh?
LikeLike
I have to say, if I was an trad-rc proselytizing away on the internet, the case I wouldn’t make is that the pope is infallible when he decides to be, and all Roman dogma coheres. The incredulity is insurmountable. If I was gonna go the witnessing route, I’d say, we got problems but have you watched TBN lately? Or, you want me to take the guy in the mickey mouse t-shirt and ripped jeans on the stage complete with lighting and intro music over the mass? The only problem with that argument, here, is we would agree with you( or I would) and you instead need to overcome word and sacrament rightly administered(not perfectly) at our communions.
LikeLike
vd, t, is Kevin reliable?
Mermaid?
LikeLike
mtx, “If Sola Scriptura is right the infallibility of the Catholic Church is out.”
Exactly.
Who decides?
On your system, it’s above your pay grade. So why do you go on the way popes blabber?
LikeLike
Hart,
Because the point I have been trying to make. Reality decides. The Church who could Acts 15 speak as “us and the Holy Spirit” is of direct divine origin and did not operate on SS and those who believed the message of the Gospel apparently did not need the Scriptures, though as the Bereans show it is commendable to search them. The Church was called out before the NT Scriptures, and the only way to get the canon of Scriptures in my hand is from Tradition witnessed to by the authoritative Church witnessed to in those Scriptures. You can’t have Scripture with out the Church. You don’t get either except by Sacred Tradition. Scripture witnesses to the existence and operation of the Church and the Church witnesses to the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Scripture and they both witness to the love and sacrifice of the Son for my sins along with God’s enduring openness to my and the worlds repentance for our sins to be forgiven in and through Christ that we may have life by His grace and union with Him who is “love”, “light”. and “a consuming fire” forever. God’s plan in salvation will always be above our pay grade. It is from Him, by Him, and to Him, but for us. We get sucked into His plan as we give up on having our plan.
“Our Father who art in heaven hallowed by thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done.”
or in another place
“Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done. .”
LikeLike
“Theology needs to be addressed and taken seriously as truth claims with real consequences- this isn’t sociology.”
Kevin,
This is a mistake. Part of the rc criticism of the calls for reform of the magisterium by subjecting all traditions to the test of scripture is that such an approach has real (negative) consequences in the here and now. Since we don’t agree on first principles, we are left comparing the consequences of our respective approaches. That means things like sociology matter. In other words, the RC apologist doesn’t get to say protestantism is bad because 30,000 denominations and then say nevermind about Cardinals who cover up abuse, bishops who cheer on ssm, 90+% who blow off teaching with no consequence, rampant sycrentism, doctrinal “developments”, and on and on. We all live with some cognitive dissonance, and saying you are aware of the trade-offs but can luve with them is fair. It is something else to point out such issues with the protestant (and there are many), but suggest it isn’t relevant to your team. This is the CtC approach that grates.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 29, 2015 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
vd, t, is Kevin reliable?
Mermaid?
Dr. Hart, your anti-Catholicism is one thing, but you didn’t even know what’s in the Rosary.
Dude.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 29, 2015 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
“Theology needs to be addressed and taken seriously as truth claims with real consequences- this isn’t sociology.”
Kevin,
This is a mistake. Part of the rc criticism of the calls for reform of the magisterium by subjecting all traditions to the test of scripture is that such an approach has real (negative) consequences in the here and now. Since we don’t agree on first principles, we are left comparing the consequences of our respective approaches. That means things like sociology matter. In other words, the RC apologist doesn’t get to say protestantism is bad because 30,000 denominations…
Dr. Hart and his remaining defenders certainly need to acknowledge the differences between sociology, ecclesiology and theology.
LikeLike
Mtx, you left out the Holy Spirit. Roman Catholics always do.
But if you think that the Church of Acts 15 could speak without scripture, then you believe the canon is not closed and in ongoing revelation.
Say hello to Mohammed and Joseph Smith.
You really want to elevate the church this high?
LikeLike
Was my point a bit obscure, Darryl? What I was thinking was that if the NT concept of heaven has suggestions of some sort of hierarchy, then Mary is a contender for being a highly significant person. Look at her encounter with Elisabeth (a significant person in her own right). Is there another encounter in the Bible where the Holy Spirit Himself inspires a person to feel unworthy to meet another human? If there is, remind me, because I can’t think of any.
LikeLike
True confession: Myself and another OL habitué were playing pub trivia last night and just for a moment wished TVD had been there.
LikeLike
Token Woman, the point of Mary’s prayer is not to exalt the exalted.
LikeLike
cw, eww.
LikeLike
Hart,
I didn’t leave out the Holy Spirit in any of that. You just believe I have therefore you don’t hear Him in my words. He brings it all about. Our seeking. Our repenting. Our converting. Our living the life of Christ. The Spirit protects the Tradition. The Spirit inspired the writing of Scripture. The Spirit creates the Church.
I most definately believe there is no further public revelation, because the Acts 15 Church has proclaimed it so. It has dogmatically proclaimed the canon. Were it to state otherwise its authority would have been and ever will be void.
LikeLike
DG, maybe you’re right. Unless he knows a lot about Pluto’s moons, the chemical formula for baking soda, and when Chevrolet bought Cadillac (1909) he would have been little help.
Belittled for unificating. Again.
LikeLike
How’s this for a church one can believe in?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/shadow-council-speaker-pushed-church-acceptance-of-contraception-gay-sex-98836/
In the end, the proposal of the German bishops, and those who stand with them, is one of a human-centered theology: changing with the spirit of the times, and affirming all situations and choices which become widespread.
LikeLike
Clete,
Sure. They’ve never said any different. What they’re objecting to is your unprincipled claim that *you* possess that unwritten tradition. If you could prove that Paul taught “X” in an unwritten tradition, then you won’t get any objection from us. But you can’t, and you’re arguing for things like the Assumption of Mary were part of that oral teaching.
Peter simply acknowledges what is already true of them—they are the word of God. That helps us recognize what they are (and it helps that they are equally inspired words), but they don’t make the epistle divinely inspired. You’re looking for an inspired table of contents…but how do we know the table of contents is inspired? The Church. Well how do you know the church is inspired? The motives of credibility which are accessible to reason. You apply those motives to the Church and Protestants apply them to Scripture. It’s the same thing applied to a different subject—and one case is much stronger than the other.
There is no substance here. Everything you’ve said could be attributed to Rome. And How can conformity to God’s Word be a man-made tradition? An infallible bishop is a man-made tradition, but being continually under the Word of God is…the very definition of a Christian. I think you may want to reconsider this.
One final thought: what’s better, reformable heresy or irreformable heresy?
Me: “Sola Scriptura is the claim that only Scripture contains the Word of God in totality.”
You: Right so can you support this claim from Scripture?
Nope, but that claim doesn’t need to be supported in Scripture. To claim it does is to demonstrate is to demonstrate a misunderstanding of SS.
It is an inference from the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. No source other than the canonical Scriptures are the very words of God ipso facto, only Scripture is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine. You want to add the Magisterium and Tradition to the list. I’m not opposed in principle, but what evidence do you have to demonstrate that this is the case?
I should have been more precise here. The Magisterium is not “equal” with the Word of God, but she is the authority who determines the meaning of the Word of God. Of course, in fairness to Rome, she does not claim that she teaches another contradictory to Scripture, but my point is that the Magisterium is equal in the sense that without it, you cannot access the meaning of Scripture.
You are not very fair to the Protestant tradition, though, which claims to have divine and apostolic authority. The only thing Protestantism rejects is your definition of the church as infallible.
Nope, not necessarily. Of course there was prophetic activity in the OT, but the Word of God is always the definitive word on any topic. Going beyond the Word of God (and particularly in its written form because this is the mode of communication for the vast majority of human history) is to commit a grievous sin.
You seem to conflate SS with writing, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of SS. SS does not say God only communicates in written documents. SS stipulates that the Scriptures alone are the Word of God and therefore are the sole infallible source for the Christian community. You’re trying to pin it down to *written* documents, but this is an incidental fact of SS. It’s not that SS is opposed to verbal communication, it is rather a statement that all we have been given as the Word of God for today is written in Scripture. Since we agree that Scripture *is* the Word of God, you have the burden of proof to show that there are other sources God has deemed infallible. If you can prove that there are other infallible authorities instituted by God, then I promise you that Sola Scriptura advocates would expand their definition of the Word of God.
I only said SS was older than papal infallibility, which is simply a matter of history. And the reason I point that out is in hopes of dropping such a line of argumentation. It doesn’t necessarily falsify papal infallibility any more than later formulations of SS undermine the doctrine. Dropping the rhetoric altogether is the most prudent way forward.
LikeLike
mtx, so you don’t believe in continuing revelation. But why? The way you construe oral tradition and the charism and authority of the magisterium raises the question about ongoing revelation. If you think the canon is closed, why? Why would it be important to close the canon when Rome has additional sources of divine communication/teaching?
LikeLike
robert, no problem. dog bites man. Churches err.
Next encyclical.
LikeLike
Hart,
It may raise questions about on going revelation, but it does not show it and it has been prohibited by said teaching authority.
LikeLike
mtx, so the magisterium says for now. But it’s alive and living beings evolve and adapt.
LikeLike
All contingent on the Holy Spirit, but I guess you have to believe in the possibility God gave a Holy Spirit protected teaching Church before you can get here where I am at. Scriptures seem to point in that direction and the Tradition of the Church has been that since the beginning, but there I go again believing in Sacred Tradition and a teaching authoritative Church with ordained teachers. “Go therefore and teach all nations all that I have commanded thee…” I’d also say, living being don’t evolve they grow and develope. Evolution requires the loss of date or mutation and that only happens in offspring not the parent. The parent remains as created and grows the same information(depostit of faith) it got at birth until God calls it home, unless cancer(heresy) develops and you have to casts it out(anathema).
LikeLike
mtx, so if Mary is so important why is the New Testament silent on her conception and assumption?
If the Mass is so central, why in the lengthy letters that Paul writes to Rome and Corinth is so little attention given to sacraments?
And if Peter’s successor is so important to Christianity, why does Paul get more space and attention in the New Testament than Peter?
Oral tradition fills in the blanks? That’s a lot of blanks. And why not find a few documents that confirm oral tradition?
LikeLike
Hart,
Most there is admitted questions for God not me, but I sure would think the amount of Paul’s theological training and writing abilities has to do with his letters being so important. Interesting how Peter is so prominent everywhere though. Don’t you think? He wasn’t even selected first by Christ, yet he is listed first ever time.
And as you should know, just like the way a church doesn’t address problems that don’t exist today. The NT doesn’t address much that everybody accepted so universally. Yeah I know it sounds suspicious. Presbyterians don’t have a low view of the Sacrements which you guys do accept. You don’t require the Scriptures to talk about them all the time to at least recognize God has a place for them in his plan and we should not play with that. You guys do take ordination seriously. Do you think it was thought of less importance in the beginning? You take Communion seriously. Do you think Paul thought it less important. Do you think when Christians gather before Holy Communion in the beginning they spent no time in pray preparing(most likely vocal prayer as a group). Do you think they forgot to read some Scripture and sing some Psalms while they were at it. That is Mass in a nutshell. You baptize seriously. Do you think Peter was less serious the day after Pentacost than on it. Do you think the Apostles forgot Jesus saying they could forgive people’s sins. Clearly the early Church practiced anointing of the sick as he NT attests. Paul himself in Ephesians calls marriage a sacrementum(mystery). Or at least that is how Jerome translated the term from Greek. BTW, “the mysteries” is what the Greeks call the Sacrements.
I will tell you. I am suprised there is nothing about Mary’s assumption just plainly said in the NT, but you know what I find odder is? No town claims her burial place. Not the same with basically all the saints in the NT. Ephesius claims her living there with John, but no tomb. Just the story of her assumption.
LikeLike
All contingent on the Holy Spirit, but I guess you have to believe in the possibility God gave a Holy Spirit protected teaching Church before you can get here where I am at. Scriptures seem to point in that direction and the Tradition of the Church has been that since the beginning, but there I go again believing in Sacred Tradition and a teaching authoritative Church with ordained teachers.
Scripture is the sword of the Spirit Heb. 4:12
Scriptures seem to point is a plastic butterknife at best.
Care to be more specific?
Right, you already did that with Act 15 and Scripture was not necessary for their decision.
There’s a reason why we don’t take most of what the papists say on this site for the gospel.
Lately, yours have been a sterling example.
LikeLike
Do you think they forgot to read some Scripture and sing some Psalms while they were at it. That is Mass in a nutshell.
First there was Hebrews 9:28 and the once for all sacrifice.
Then there was the RCCatechism and the un-commanded re-enactment of that sacrifice by fake Aaronic priests.
Now this is the latest.
Who we gonna believe?
How about the “accursed idolatry” of Heidelberg Catechism?
I will tell you. I am suprised there is nothing about Mary’s assumption just plainly said in the NT, but you know what I find odder is? No town claims her burial place. Not the same with basically all the saints in the NT. Ephesius claims her living there with John, but no tomb. Just the story of her assumption.
No, what’s
odderto be expected is the appeal to stories that are on par with the NT, if not the silence of the NT. Works every time. Why, why not? Any reasonable person would have said something if it wasn’t true, so it must be.The dog didn’t bark.
Therefore it was a space alien from another dimension that robbed the Vatican library of all her manuscripts where her traditions were written down by the apostles on a typewriter.
LikeLike
sdb-
[kc:]“Theology needs to be addressed and taken seriously as truth claims with real consequences- this isn’t sociology.”
[sdb:] Kevin, This is a mistake. Part of the rc criticism of the calls for reform of the magisterium by subjecting all traditions to the test of scripture is that such an approach has real (negative) consequences in the here and now. Since we don’t agree on first principles, we are left comparing the consequences of our respective approaches. That means things like sociology matter. In other words, the RC apologist doesn’t get to say protestantism is bad because 30,000 denominations and then say nevermind about Cardinals who cover up abuse, bishops who cheer on ssm, 90+% who blow off teaching with no consequence, rampant sycrentism, doctrinal “developments”, and on and on. We all live with some cognitive dissonance, and saying you are aware of the trade-offs but can luve with them is fair. It is something else to point out such issues with the protestant (and there are many), but suggest it isn’t relevant to your team. This is the CtC approach that grates.
I love the post, sdb, hence the full quote.
If I thought the sociological approach came first, I’d probably be arguing for Norwegian State Lutheranism. Perhaps it has all kinds of deeply reprehensible facets, I have no idea- but from my limited knowledge I see larger-than-average families, a sense of national character and social solidarity, education and intelligence, and admirable sovereignty and stability. Much easier to defend than Brazil or Italy or the D.R. or U.S. Catholicism in important areas.
Looking at fruits is important, and I think sheds light on contemporary Catholic issues (“Spirit of VII” / ill-considered liturgical reforms/Council of the Media, c.f. Benedict-Ratzinger). Perhaps you’d do the same with other large groups of Protestants. But I find it less useful and often misleading in Protestant-Catholic discussions- is it interesting or useful to argue Kasper or the Neocatechumenal Way against PCUSA? – and don’t think I use it very often.
Life is messy, history is messy. Seems to me progress, if at all possible, only comes from understanding each other’s understanding of stated first principles, and then assisting each other in developing that understanding.
Only at that point does it seem to me to make sense to discuss what flows from these principals- but not in a way that skips steps, mischaracterizes, and seeks to score points, rather always sensitive to being corrected as to what is intended.
LikeLike
Robert-
You make interesting points; I get back home Sunday, will try to reply then.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 30, 2015 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
mtx, so if Mary is so important why is the New Testament silent on her conception and assumption?
If the Mass is so central, why in the lengthy letters that Paul writes to Rome and Corinth is so little attention given to sacraments?
And if Peter’s successor is so important to Christianity, why does Paul get more space and attention in the New Testament than Peter?
Oral tradition fills in the blanks? That’s a lot of blanks. And why not find a few documents that confirm oral tradition?
The question isn’t “oral tradition,” Dr. Hart, it’s Tradition with a capital “T.” You gotta be able to tell the difference. Tradition with capital “T” gave us the Trinity.
Prove the Trinity sola scriptura, Dr. Hart. You can’t. Prove your rejection of the Eucharist sola scriptura Dr. Fundamentalis, Jr.
Your 30,000-member Orthodox Presbyterian Church is doctrinally pure, perhaps, but only because it’s anorexic, refusing to partake
mtx, you sound desperate. And these are problems for God, not you? Why didn’t you put it that way before converting to Roman Catholicism? The problems with Protestantism are for God, not me.
Peter is prominent everywhere? Are you serious? At the Council of Jerusalem, who gives the ruling? James, not Peter.
You sound like someone who will only hear things that confirm his views. I sense that a lot among the converts. Wildly inflated claims about the church followed by amazing insecurity when challenged.
LikeLike
vd, t, Orthodox Presbyterians partake more than vd, t who doesn’t go to church.
LikeLike
Hart,
My point in saying most of that was questions for God is that they are why questions about the reason God had done things a certain way. I am satisfied with the way God has done things, even when it is difficult for us to understand why. Some times he answers why questions when we truly seek Him about it. Sometimes not. We must be willing to not get an answer. Job shows us that. God Himself is enough of an answer. He is who I have gained in the Holy Eucharist. I believe it is Him. Maybe you do not. I don’t know that you have ever asked Him. I believe a study using even Sola Scriptura can get you there.
BTW, I am quite aware James made the last statement in Acts 15. More could be said though. I did see you left out this: “6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said…” Peter seems to have had the role of settling the debate that day. James clearly has a role too. James doesn’t say Peter’s settling is to be rejected. He applies it. That is the role of every bishop in the world today. James works with Peter not against him.
My words weren’t “prominent” though when I talked about Peter. I said oddly he is listed first in the list of Apostles every time. Personally I believe Paul had a greater role in the spreading of the faith. That is just a personal opinion though. Either way Paul’s role would not exist with out a Church to be baptized into. That is how God wanted it. Our life is the same. I must be like Paul and be concerned with fellowship and unity with the Church leaders that “I might not run in vain.”
LikeLike
texas, and why not trust God with hard questions when you’re a Protestant so that you don’t cross the Tiber? Now that you’re there, you just shrug them off.
Do you think that might have anything to do with an institutional culture that allows the bishops to cover up the sex scandal? (Mind you, I’m not talking about the sex. Abuse of children is not the sole problem of Rome. But bishops with charism and who succeed the apostles covering up for wayward priests, that’s a big question that if you don’t ask, you allow abuse of power — or things like oral tradition.)
LikeLike
Hart,
I don’t think I shrug these things off. I take it all pretty seriously. I am a family man with only so much time to spare though. I am pretty sure I have told you already how I feel about the sex scandal stuff. I believe there is enough dogmatically solid and consistent to place my trust in all. I just know I can’t do all your or anybody’s swim across the river. Grabbing a panicking swimmer is the best way to get two drowning victims. Don’t swim if you don’t think it is true, but don’t think you or anyone can get here without faith and love of God and nothing but the same will keep you here. The bring a horse to water bit you know. Only those who cupped the water and kept their head up stayed in the army with Gideon. Faith seeking understanding.
LikeLike
Do you think that might have anything to do with an institutional culture that allows the bishops to cover up the sex scandal?
You’re really getting desperate now. The question is how and why your version of the Christian religion is so different from not just Rome but the Eastern Orthodox. Again, you’re not arguing theology or even ecclesiology.
LikeLike
Brandon,
“What they’re objecting to is your unprincipled claim that *you* possess that unwritten tradition”
Can you tell me the principles underlying your claim that you possess the written tradition?
Concerning the Assumption, Tradition need not be a game of telephone, as Ratzinger explains:
“Before Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers’ answer was emphatically negative. What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but also of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Würzburg (who also had come from Breslau), had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the fifth century; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition”. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts. This was the position that our teachers represented. But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it had not caught sight of previously and yet was already handed down in the original Word. But such a perspective was still quite unattainable by German theological thought.”
“You’re looking for an inspired table of contents … but how do we know the table of contents is inspired?”
Right. But that (how do we know?) is not germane – I’m merely asking for consistency. I’m saying, a Protestant church teaches a particular set, and only that set, of writings is inspired. Now, given the rule of SS, how do we confirm/verify that teaching according to Scripture against which all teachings are to be judged/normed?
“The motives of credibility which are accessible to reason. You apply those motives to the Church and Protestants apply them to Scripture.”
Yes, but to be consistent with SS, you cannot create a canon (of “objective criteria” or however it may be characterized) above the canon as Ridderbos cautions here – http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/. The point is not “how do we know” – I’m simply examining the consistency of the SS position. The identification of the extent and scope of the canon is taught by Protestantism. SS asserts all teachings must be derived and/or judged and corrected by Scripture. So I’d like to know how the teachings of the identified extent and scope of the canon (along with the 4 others mentioned) meet that criteria.
“Everything you’ve said could be attributed to Rome.”
So since saying SS is a manmade tradition is a stretch by your yardstick, saying Rome’s teachings are manmade tradition is a stretch as well.
“And How can conformity to God’s Word be a man-made tradition? ”
It’s not. SS redefines the sense of God’s word and elevates private judgment which is the manmade tradition.
“what’s better, reformable heresy or irreformable heresy?”
That Rome promotes irreformable heresy is what’s in dispute. Again, what’s better – divine revelation (infallible dogma) or fallible we might be wrong but probably aren’t?
“Nope, but that claim doesn’t need to be supported in Scripture. To claim it does is to demonstrate is to demonstrate a misunderstanding of SS.
It is an inference from the fact that Scripture is God’s Word.”
SS asserts all teachings must be derived and/or judged and corrected by Scripture. So I’d like to know how the teaching that only Scripture contains the Word of God in totality meets that criteria.
“The Magisterium is not “equal” with the Word of God, but she is the authority who determines the meaning of the Word of God. Of course, in fairness to Rome, she does not claim that she teaches another contradictory to Scripture, but my point is that the Magisterium is equal in the sense that without it, you cannot access the meaning of Scripture.”
Does Rome teach that a non-believer cannot read Scripture and ascertain it speaks of Jesus and not Mickey Mouse? The issue is the authority to issue normative judgments that are binding upon all.
“You are not very fair to the Protestant tradition, though, which claims to have divine and apostolic authority. The only thing Protestantism rejects is your definition of the church as infallible. ”
Right. So I’d like to know the Scriptural precedent for claims to divine and apostolic authority that do not entail the teaching of that authority is infallible, or entail that the teaching “might be wrong, but probably isn’t” and that is the grounds for others submitting to it. I’d like to know how a church can simultaneously claim to have divine and apostolic authority while also claiming semper reformanda and rejecting infallibility and the types of claims Rome makes.
“Going beyond the Word of God (and particularly in its written form because this is the mode of communication for the vast majority of human history)”
So unwritten tradition was not a big factor in communication for the vast majority of human history? That doesn’t seem correct to me.
“Since we agree that Scripture *is* the Word of God, you have the burden of proof to show that there are other sources God has deemed infallible.”
We don’t even agree on the extent and scope of Scripture. Because we hold completely different grounds for that belief, which is the issue. On what basis is that teaching (this is the canon, it is infallible and sole ultimate authority, etc) normative and binding upon all, based on Protestantism’s own claims? I am merely at this point interested in the consistency and coherency of your grounds.
LikeLike
ImplicitFaith seeking understandingwhich really isn’t necessary in the Roman paradigm, but keep pumping the propaganda out, fren.LikeLike
We don’t even agree on the extent and scope of Scripture. Because we hold completely different grounds for that belief, which is the issue. On what basis is that teaching (this is the canon, it is infallible and sole ultimate authority, etc) normative and binding upon all, based on Protestantism’s own claims?
While the church is an external authority and subordinate witness to Scripture, which Scripture recognizes 1 Tim. 3:15, the Holy Spirit is the internal witness and deciding factor. The NT church is founded upon the apostles and their ministry, ditto the NT. We know what the early church believed and we accept it in the spirit of those who first heard the woman at the well testify of Christ and then said unto the woman, “Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.John” 4:42
Rome of course, likes to interject herself and claim all things, but even then she didn’t really show up until about the 4th century.
Consequently the canon was recognized by others far previous to Rome’s official pronouncement at Trent, when the Reformation finally provoked them to get off the stick.
I am merely at this point interested in the consistency and coherency of your grounds.
Said the weaselSaid the inmate of the asylum to the doctor.No comment.
LikeLike
Darryl, you said: ‘The point of Mary’s prayer is not to exalt the exalted’. This is pretty uncontroversial. Obviously Mary is seeing herself in the role of the humble individual who is exalted by God. (Interesting that it is God who does the exalting. The people simply acknowledge her blessedness).
On looking at Luke 1 again it looks like there are two Greek words which attribute joy to the unborn child of Elisabeth. I don’t think I’d paid this enough attention in relation to pro-life issues and feel a bit troubled about that. But this is not the theme of your thread.
LikeLike
vd, t, that’s one question, #puttingthevdinevade
But the question I asked is what makes the bishops so reliable and why put so much trust in them if they are willing to overlook and even hide sexual abuse? That’s a question too.
LikeLike
James Young, cool.
How does this help your cause?
One, this is not the church that Jesus founded. It’s the one that grew. No architectural image here — foundation with a cornerstone. This is Darwinism, the church as species. I guess that explains the current Supreme Court with a RC majority.
Second, you keep saying that revelation has ceased, but new doctrines and practices come along that are divine. Hmmm.
But again, cool.
yup.
LikeLike
James Young, you sold BXVI short. It’s not just the assumption of Mary, it’s Mary the Co-redemptrix:
‘s’all good.
LikeLike
dg,
All of the elect are co-redeemers – those who cooperate with (are predetermined to freely cooperate with, if you prefer) God’s plan for the redemption of the world, which correlates with the process of sanctification.
Mary is the finest flower of all those saved, whether canonized or entirely unknown.
LikeLike
Kevin, but why would Mary ever need to be saved? She was sinless.
If I am a co-redeemer, why no statues of mmmmmmeeeeeeEEEEEE?
LikeLike
I don’t think it has to imply we’re “helping God out” (who is of course omnipotent) – instead that we are acting as instruments of His will.
The way in which this occurs is surely mysterious (in the strict philosophical sense – unknowable by the human intellect) – the problem of free will is fundamental to philosophy and of interest in every generation.
If redemption in any sense involves the salvation of souls, even if it is predetermined which souls will be saved, if they have not yet been created then their redemption can’t in fact yet have taken place.
So redemption is a process which overlaps with the lives – the events – the actions – of man, temporally and materially. We’re like salaried employees – some at minimum wage, some with executive positions – with pensions in Heaven.
Except of course those who work for the competition.
LikeLike
DG –
Kevin, but why would Mary ever need to be saved? She was sinless.
Well, what does salvation mean fundamentally but preservation from Hell? God elected on a different path for her – her salvation didn’t involve struggling with sin, the mode of existence the rest of us are cursed to endure.
If I am a co-redeemer, why no statues of mmmmmmeeeeeeEEEEEE?
It might be helpful to review the Precepts of the Church: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandments_of_the_Church
FYI, I’ve never heard a Catholic claim to be a co-redeemer (although I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to find someone on the internet doing it)- sounds presumptuous.
LikeLike
Clete,
Sure, as the WCF states,
This criterion function as “motives of credibility” for Scripture to attest to it’s Divine origin.
That is not what SS teaches, though I concede that in your construal of SS that is what it entails. I just think you’ve badly misunderstood SS.
Because it is the only thing we’ve been given that is the Word of God. You claim we have some unwritten traditions and an infallible Magisterium that God speaks infallibly through. We contest that based on the criterion explained by the WCF above. To put it in other words, the motives of “credibility” are incredible.
Though there is much debate about the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7, it seems that this could function as an example. You are even willing to admit that the Magisterium isn’t infallible about everything. We just say that the church ministers the infallible Word of God, but there is nothing that requires that the medium be infallible. Just because an ass spoke for God doesn’t mean he’s infallible.
No, you’ve not understood me, but I’m willing to leave this alone because it’s not particularly germane.
Right, your ground for accepting Scripture is ultimately that the Roman bishop infallibly teaches the canon. The Ref Prot’s ground is ultimately the Holy Spirit testifying to its Divine origin. Both claims are not reducible to the reasons given for them (which would be rationalism) or without reason (which would be fideism), but they are faith claims grounded in reason. For a reminder of those reasons from the Protestant perspective, see the WCF above. The criterion applies to scriptural books individually and collectively.
LikeLike
kevin, salvation is not preservation. Salvation means you are in a position of desperation. To preserve someone in need of salvation is to keep them in that state.
Preserving Mary proves my point. She didn’t need salvation. Her state was sinless. God may have preserved her. That’s not overturning sin and its consequences.
LikeLike
Robert, Re: the saints
[Robert:] The issue isn’t whether they care for us; the issue is demonstrating that they are paying attention to what is going on here. It’s a minor point, to be sure. The kicker for me is really the omniscience issue.
If a saint with a glorified body is suddenly omniscient, which is essentially what they would have to be to hear all those prayers at once, the saint is no longer human. That’s the problem. The jump from one ontological category—humanity—to another, deity.
Some properties of the human mind and body are essential, some are contingent on existence within life as we know it – particularly the spatial and temporal aspects. If I can offer some non-rigorous philosophizing on perception and attention:
“Omniscience” isn’t the word I would use to describe the ability of the saints to hear our prayers (they aren’t truly omniscient, as some have a fuller understanding of God than others, don’t they?)- “perception” isn’t even be the proper word, requiring mind-body interaction with material objects.
Your objection doesn’t seem to allow for non-essential but significant changes in the human mind once in Heaven. A perceptual model requires spatiality. Is Heaven spatial? In some sense it must be, if our bodies are present there. But is the Holy Ghost essentially spatial? I doubt it.
I don’t think you’d argue that hearing prayers depends upon a perceptual model of prayer getting from individuals on Earth to saints in Heaven (i.e., do they somehow receive the ability to literally hear everywhere? – I don’t think so). But without some sort of significant change, what other model could there be?
I think we have to grant saints in Heaven remain human and yet inhabit a realm spatially quite different from ours – meaning their perceptual faculties would respond quite differently, or are somehow changed.
Attention – we can only attend to a single item at a given time. But is time measured the same way in Heaven? Does it exist at all? In the context of eternality (required by proximity to God), why should we think attention remains a fundamental component of our minds? So the case is similar as with spatiality in regard to our own faculties.
I hope to see the face of God after I die – what this could mean now, I do not know. Surely my mind and body in experiencing a minimized or radically altered perception, losing the limitations imposed by attention, and attaining whatever is necessary to see the face of God will need some sort of broadening, expansion, or – to use the standard term, here given no additional baggage – ‘glorification.’
Regarding ontological categories, let’s not forget angels – our guardian angels hear our prayers without a word being uttered. I mention this just to indicate there is more available for consideration than just the human-divine distinction.
LikeLike
Robert,
[kc:] Does Scripture not support that those who love the Lord are more likely to be heard by him? Can’t check references now. We appeal to God, at least at times, on the basis of our faithfulness to him. Seems to me those he loves best would have a stronger relationship.
[Robert:] In one sense, yes. But praying to the saints is presented here as just like us asking another person to pray for us, but in RC piety, the sense is often “Ask Mary, God really likes to listen to her much more than you or the rest of you peons.”
Ok, but can you say in what sense you agree and re-frame your specific objection?
[kc:] Bob S raised this, too. The answer is the tradition of the Church- the early Christological definitions, the Filioque.
[Robert:] Did Peter give us the Christological definition of one person in two natures? Or Paul? Or did they give us the filioque.
The answer, of course, is no. Those things are deducible from Scripture but they are not themselves apostolic tradition. Paul never said homoousios. That’s the issue.
Deducible from Scripture? Perhaps, and perhaps not – many Eastern Orthodox would contend the Filioque (the doctrine, not just the inclusion of the word in the Creed).
You may be able to convince me that the inference from Scripture is necessary, but at the moment I’m not convinced. It would help if you could point out the early fathers going through the process of deduction directly from Scripture (and I’m not saying you can’t), rather than simply assuming the Filioque (arguably on grounds of tradition) and coming to understand its implications.
Not sure any of us have time to become experts in the Apostolic Fathers and development of theology, though.
LikeLike
DG- Kevin, salvation is not preservation. Salvation means you are in a position of desperation. To preserve someone in need of salvation is to keep them in that state.
Preserving Mary proves my point. She didn’t need salvation. Her state was sinless. God may have preserved her. That’s not overturning sin and its consequences.
God’s grace is required to keep man from original sin in the three cases we have – Adam, Eve, and the second Eve, Mary.
A&E had no original sin (perhaps strictly defined as the complete absence of sanctifying grace), but acquired it through acts of sin. Had they continued to follow God, they would never have sinned and remained in grace. They were dependent on God for that grace. This is the fundamental, undamaged, natural state of man which through Christ we can again achieve in Heaven.
Mary had no original sin, and was born into the natural state of man, in sanctifying grace. She did not somehow win Heaven of her own accord, but through carrying out God’s will- her fiat- may it be done to me.
She could in principle have fallen into sin and lost sanctifying grace- she then would have passed it on to her Son. Christ still died for her as her place in Heaven was secured as a direct result of the necessary process of his birth and death.
I not-infallibly suggest “preservation” and “salvation” be understood in this context.
LikeLike
Kevin, I don’t think that’s what Augustine taught. Man before the fall could follow God’s law because he was created good. But this is where RC’s and Prot’s differ. We follow Augustine on human nature and his condemnation of Pelagianism. You don’t.
LikeLike
DG-
I can’t usefully speak to Augustine on the subject.
My understanding is that a & e were “created good” in the sense they were created in sanctifying grace (as was Mary).
A & E depended on God’s grace, but lost it through sin. Mary was likewise dependent, but did not sin. That dependence refutes Pelagianism, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Kevin, maybe it refutes Pelagianism, but that means God created man not good. He couldn’t do good apart from grace. So matter is evil and spirit is good? Manicheanism anyone? Or how about Platonism?
LikeLike
DG,
Our goodness is dependent on His goodness – we are creatures, not God.
To be created in sanctifying grace is to be “created good” – which doesn’t have to mean (and in the case of humans definitely doesn’t mean) that we’re incapable of evil.
So A & E & Mary were genuinely good at their respective creations, and capable of evil.
So creatures can be good – this refutes Manicheanism, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Kevin, you missed some of the discussion here, but Reformed theology doesn’t look at it that way:
LikeLike
Kevin, also if Adam depended on grace for goodness, then how did the fall not make God the author of withholding grace?
LikeLike