Phil Lawler wonders about the pastoral implications of Pope Francis’ pastoral advice in Amoris Laetitia. Consider the plight of “regular” Roman Catholics:
In any Catholic community there will always be some devout believers who, following the Lord’s advice, “Strive to enter by the narrow door.” They will pray often and ardently, try to attend daily Mass, practice their own private devotions, and seek out spiritual direction from priests who demand a lot of them. For these people—let’s call them “high-octane” Catholics—Gresham’s Law will not apply. They are the equivalent of the folks who demand payment in doubloons.
But most Catholics, in most times and places, are not of the high-octane variety. Most “regular” parishioners will do what the Church demands of them, but will not seek out extra rigors. They will attend Sunday Mass on a regular basis, raise their children in the faith, follow the precepts of the Church as they understand them, contribute to the parish. Faithful if not zealous, they will form the backbone of the Catholic community. Nourished by the sacraments and encouraged by their pastors, they will grow in faith; some will eventually become high-octane Catholics.
Now notice how these “regular” Catholics—who sincerely intend to meet their obligations, without taking on extra burdens—are likely to choose between two hypothetical parishes:
In Parish A, Sunday Mass lasts 90 minutes or more; the liturgy is “high” and solemn; the Gregorian chant is unfamiliar. In Parish B, Mass is out in 40 minutes; the hymns sound like (and sometimes are) snappy show tunes.
In Parish A, religious-education classes are demanding, and students who do not master the basic catechism lessons do not advance. In Parish B, teachers assume that “they’re good kids” and don’t worry about details.
In Parish A, when a young couple comes to discuss marriage, and the pastor notices that they list the same home address on their registration forms, he tells them that they must live separately. In Parish B the pastor “doesn’t notice” the matching addresses, and plans for the wedding can move forward.
In Parish A, priests often preach on controversial topics, driving home the Church’s least popular messages, reminding the parishioners of their sins. In Parish B, the homily is always a gentle reminder that we should be kind to one another, and not too rough on ourselves.
Needless to say, high-octane Catholics will flock to Parish A. Regular Catholics will gravitate toward Parish B. Human nature being what it is, most people will choose the less demanding of two options.
Now notice what happens to priests in these parishes when they meet a couple that has been re-married:
In his apostolic exhortation, Pope Francis sets up the model of a pastor who will meet with these couples, help them to review and assess their lives, to repent their past failings, to bring their lives closer to the Christian ideal, and to do everything that they can in their current circumstances to grow in holiness. Exactly how this process will unfold is unclear, because, as the Pope explains, it is impossible to anticipate all the unique circumstances of any individual case. But clearly the Pope is describing a rigorous process, rather than a quick solution.
But what sort of priest would insist on that rigor in his dealings with a remarried couple? The pastor of Parish A, probably. But that pastor would very likely tell the couple that if they wish to receive the sacraments they must live as brother and sister. And the couple, for that matter, if they were active parishioners in Parish A, would probably have reached that conclusion for themselves already. So Amoris Laetitiae would bring no change in their case.
In Parish B, on the other hand, the pastor—having long ago established the pattern of requiring only the minimum—would be far more likely to tell the couple that they should not worry about details, that they should feel free to receive the Eucharist. In all likelihood he would already have conveyed that message, and they would already be in the Communion line every Sunday. Again, the apostolic exhortation would cause no significant change.
But consider what might happen in the marginal cases, where change is most visible. What will happen to divorced/remarried couples who, after years away from the faith, are inspired by the Pope’s message to return to the fold? If they happen to meet with a priest who expects them to go through a long and difficult process, aren’t they likely to seek a second opinion, and maybe a third, until inevitably, they find a pastor who will welcome them back immediately, with no requirements and no strings attached? Hasn’t that pattern already been clearly established by the young couples who want their wedding scheduled without a demanding marriage-prep program, or want their children confirmed without a rigorous CCD requirement?
This is not exactly the church that was opposed to any trace of modernity for at least 150 years.
Now imagine the real life (fictional couple) of Rex Mottram and Julia Marchmain:
Julia manages to match Sebastian’s dissolute lifestyle through her own acts of intransigence. She eventually plans to marry Rex Mottram, a Protestant Canadian, who has managed to gain a seat in the House of Commons. It is this relationship with Rex that marks Julia’s descent into chronic sin. Julia learns that Rex may be carrying on an affair with a mistress. She thinks that if they become engaged, this can put an end to the affair. When it doesn’t, she then begins to reason that if she is going to keep Rex from being unfaithful, she will have to offer sexual gratification to her fiancé before they are married. Julia justifies this in her own mind and presents the proposition to a priest: “Surely, Father, it can’t be wrong to commit a small sin myself in order to keep him from a much worse one?” The Jesuit responds in the negative and suggests that she make her confession. It is this moment, when Julia does not receive what she wants, that she turns against the faith: “‘No, thank you,’ she said, as though refusing the offer of something in a shop. ‘I don’t think I want to today,’ and walked angrily home. From that moment she shut her mind against her religion.”
During their engagement, Rex agrees to receive instruction so that he can convert to Catholicism. However, matters are exasperated when it is revealed that Rex was previously married and divorced in Canada. Rex does not understand how this can be an impediment to a prospective marriage to Julia and he sees no difference between his divorce and the granting of an annulment. When it is obvious that nothing can be done with only a few weeks before the wedding, Julia and Rex agree to marry in a Protestant ceremony, separating themselves from Catholic society and the Marchmain family. Julia’s intransigence reaches its peak as she voices a modern refusal to recognize objective sin: “I don’t believe these priests know everything. I don’t believe in hell for things like that. I don’t know that I believe in it for anything.”
So which priest would Rex and Julia seek? Parish A or Parish B? This writer thinks Parish B’s priest is closer to Pope Francis’ instruction in his apostolic exhortation:
If they were alive today, would Julia and Charles have had to part ways? Amoris Laetitia offers alternatives: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” Couldn’t Julia and Charles have spoken with Father MacKay in the internal forum for the sake of contributing to the “formation of a correct judgment”?
Even the idea of living as brother and sister seems to be impossible in this modern age. While Julia explains to Charles that she plans to “[j]ust go on – alone” this is not a sad revelation because she is finally able to receive God’s mercy and to return to a right relationship with Him. However Amoris Laetitia makes it seem that “going on alone” or abstaining from sexual intercourse is impossible in 2016. Pope Francis explains that “many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers.’” In the age of Brideshead, one didn’t die if they abstained from sexual intimacy. Apparently, in this sex-obsessed age, it is impossible for one to live without it.
Some will say that no dogma has changed. And sure the dogma of mortal and venial sins have not changed. But if priests’ pastoral counsel, with a green light from the magisterium, is defective by not warning the flock from sin, if it tolerates sinful practices under the guise of being pastoral, something has changed.
Evelyn Waugh knew that the Church of England had changed (even when dogma hadn’t). Do Roman Catholic apologists think Waugh wouldn’t notice this?
Old Life 
James Young, “What on earth does a lineup of speakers at a few American Catholic college commencements have to do with the RC faith?”
Now all that comprehensiveness and universality doesn’t sweat details? Index of Books anyone?
Modernism still condemned? Which Roman Catholic cares?
LikeLike
Robert, James Young is acting Jesuitical. White is black.
LikeLike
James Young, “Right, an institution that isn’t the church … isn’t the church.”
Don’t sell yourself short. What about Europe?
Modesty is unbecoming all those championship rings.
LikeLike
James Young, “So are you a reprobate being hoodwinked by God’s evanescent grace and inferior operations of the Holy Spirit deluding yourself into thinking you’re elect when actually you are not?”
And you’re a reprobate being hoodwinked by a magisterium that says the magisterium is infallible? God’s ways are inscrutable? The magisterium’s? Obvious.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Belloc is the church now instead of Georgetown? I am Spartacus.
“then who is pastorally condemning and disciplining modernism? Modernism still condemned? Which Roman Catholic cares?”
Can you point me to the liturgical and worship changes post 1910 in which the sacraments are no longer celebrated, Scripture’s no longer read as the Word of God, Christ’s divinity and Resurrection are denied or not referenced, lesbian priests are being ordained, etc? Dogma is affirmed every mass (regardless of the specific rite) in the actions, prayers, etc. – in doing so, modernism is condemned and disciplined. Lots of RCs still care – I hear priests on national radio condemning modernism often – does that mean it’s not a problem? Nope.
LikeLike
Cletus,
“Considering the majority of Christians past and present disagree with your view of the justified and assurance, I believe you may want to take Darryl’s advice and engage in more self-awareness regarding Peter’s passage.”
Then they like you disbelieved Romans 8:31. And your point is?
“No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?” (John 7:48).
All you got is doubt.
LikeLike
CVD
One of Rome’s many flaws is its rejection of 2k. As far as whether what happens at Catholic Universities is “the church”, I think it is hard to escape that in light of “Ex Corde Ecclesiae”. Your bit about the vapors regarding Biden, might well be directed towards the trads who freaked over Obama and Cuomo.
LikeLike
“Considering the majority of Christians past and present disagree with your view of the justified and assurance…”
The way is wide that leads to destruction… Maybe being the biggest ain’t all that?
LikeLike
Considering the majority of Christians past and present disagree with your view of the justified and assurance…
Is there a survey out there of the millions and billions of professing Christians who have lived throughout history?
LikeLike
“One can have a moral certainty…”
Is this the same moral certainty that served Neuhaus so well?
LikeLike
James Young, can you answer for America, Commonweal, NCR, Marquette, Georgetown?
You want all the glory but none of the Joe Pepitone years.
Are you in car sales?
LikeLike
sdb,
Double ding.
Moral certainty is the refuge of the Pharisee who believes himself to have merited grace.
OTOH, sin exposed in the light of a satisfactory propitiation humbles before God – “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’
LikeLike
Considering the majority of Christians past and present disagree with your view of the justified and assurance…
Another question—Is there are survey of present professing Christians that tells us how many of them even know what “Justified” means. Because if the broadly evangelical church is any indication of Romanism—and it is since RCism is far more nominal—almost nobody professing Christianity will recognize the term “justified,” let alone be able to define it.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing—if Roman Catholicism wants to beat its chest about being so big and so “catholic,” that’s fine. It must then justify what it believes in light of the Magisterium’s abject failure to deal with Commonweal, Notre Dame, Boston College, etc. If you go all in on the Magisterium, then RCism must be limited only to those who actually believe what the Magisterium says—if you can even figure that out. If we take the most conservative, grammatical-historical meaning of the Magisterium, that’s going to leave us with a number of true RCs that’s really quite small. Which should impact one’s definition of catholicity and universality. Not that it will, however. Blind obedience to a religious institution is really quite strong on the part of RCs who even care about apologetics. Most mass-going RCs are content to believe that all roads lead to heaven.
LikeLike
Robert says: Another question—Is there are survey of present professing Christians that tells us how many of them even know what “Justified” means. Because if the broadly evangelical church is any indication of Romanism—and it is since RCism is far more nominal—almost nobody professing Christianity will recognize the term “justified,” let alone be able to define it.
Amen Robert. Reminds me of Zrim saying the other day that if one thinks many don’t say “I am ‘a’ bride of Christ”, they need to get out more, his meaning that many do say that; I was thinking then, that likely what is more true is to get way out more of the cocoon and see many likely don’t know much about ‘the’ bride, period, and the Lord and His character, plans, purposes, ways, word, etc., relatively speaking.
We keep hearing this next generation has ‘belief’ but just don’t need ‘the church’?
LikeLike
Noon,
Now humility is good? I thought it was no bueno and leads to doubt which is bad. But then certainty or confidence is also Pharisaical now according to you. This may shock you – RCs and EOs and Arminians and Lutherans and church fathers (you know, all the reprobates who believe in unicorns and whiffle dust) who reject your view of justification and assurance and were exegetical dummies and “disbelieved Romans 8:31 – and your point is?” (I definitely feel your humility there) also pray ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ There’s 3 ways it can be said at every mass – http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/mass/penitentialrite.html
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme says: Sure? No – that risks the sin of presumption and snuffing out the virtue of humility. Confident and hopeful? Yes.
thinking ‘not being sure’ about one’s salvation is not really ‘humility’ at all -on the surface, at first seeming reasonable, but in reality is the opposite ? – the poor in spirit (having nothing to offer) are relying totally on the Lord and trusting totally in Him and He says we can be sure and wants us to be sure. Humility is the proper estimation of oneself.
Our hope – Jesus – has entered within the veil – and is sure – and God’s promises never fail those who trust for them in Him, those who have taken refuge in Him, by His grace and mercy.
-See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! 1 John 3:1
-This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil Hebrews 6: 19
-Faith is the assurance of things hoped for Heb 11:1.. MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK (from faith) , MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM. But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul. Heb 10:38-29
-we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end Hebrews 3:14
good post here Cletus this am for you : http://www.gty.org/Blog/B160422
LikeLike
This may shock you – RCs and EOs and Arminians and Lutherans and church fathers (you know, all the reprobates who believe in unicorns and whiffle dust) who reject your view of justification and assurance.
That’s a rather large brush. Sure, modern RCs reject our views of justification and assurance, but that’s been dogma only since the Reformation. And of course, how many RCs in the pew actually embrace Protestant ideas? Hard to say.
EOs are a bit of different matter, not even talking in legal terms like RCs and Protestants do when it comes to justification.
Then of course, Lutheranism shares our view of justification, as do many Arminians. There’s also not a whole lot of difference on actual assurance of salvation with Lutheranism and even with many Arminians. The difference is over the perseverance of the justified. And anyone who denies that has failed to exegete the text correctly. It isn’t a matter of intelligence. Smart people make mistakes. Tradition is hard to overcome. And most people can’t see that the failure of the justified to persevere turns God into someone who is really hoping hard that we’ll be saved, He just can’t really do anything about it.
And then the church fathers—which church father are we talking about? And on which day? As if their views on justification and assurance were monolithic. I guess if you ignore the writings and men who disagree with you. Remember, RCism gets to define the consensus of the fathers. It is equivalent to “whatever the current Roman Church believes.”
LikeLike
Robert, isn’t the point whether anyone in the episcopate cares about justification? If they didn’t, it sure would make sense of the current disarray and the pope’s prayer videos. It also explains why dogma doesn’t change. It doesn’t have to. No one follows it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Ding, ding, ding.
LikeLike
Cletus,
Now you want me doubting I’m actually justified and elect. Which is what you doubt about yourself, being RC.
You claim to be a believer in Christ but you don’t believe His promise in Rom. 8:31. You have the same kind of humility as Caitlyn.
She has the kind of humility that claims to be true to her actual nature, but when she pisses, a fact’s a fact.
All you sell is doubt.
I got Christ, and His sure word spoken through His holy apostles.
LikeLike
Not that it’s going to make any difference to the discussion, but something you said, Robert, IS important to the doctrine of “sola” scriptura.
“And then the church fathers—which church father are we talking about? And on which day? As if their views on justification and assurance were monolithic. I guess if you ignore the writings and men who disagree with you. Remember, RCism gets to define the consensus of the fathers. It is equivalent to “whatever the current Roman Church believes.””
“About what issues was there consensus?” would be a trail worth investigating.
If “Fathers” and tradition mean something to sola scriptura rather than solo scriptura, then nobody gets to cherry pick, right?
If we deviate from the consensus of the Father’s, in what way can we claim to be heirs of Christian Tradition?
We have to be holding to the consensus in order to claim the tradition of the Father’s.
Who is holding to the consensus of The Father’s?
LikeLike
Right now, you all are not convinced, and while I don’t understand why not, I do appreciate that you grapple with the questions and claims, on a daily basis.
https://stpaulcenter.com/media/audio/church-fathers-as-true-fathers
Have a great weekend!
LikeLike
Ali,
“Humility is the proper estimation of oneself.”
Correct – the proper estimation in God’s eyes. I can’t estimate what I’ll be in the future. One can have a moral certainty they are in a state of grace and are presently justified. One cannot presume they will be in that state at death and have the final grace of perseverance – the virtue of hope is not presumptuous certainty – one is to pray and depend upon God for His continuing sustaining grace and final perseverance. Was Paul engaging in false humility when he stated, “in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts” or “I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.”
As the CCC states, “reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty. A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: “Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'”‘ That’s not false humility.
LikeLike
Robert,
“The difference is over the perseverance of the justified. And anyone who denies that has failed to exegete the text correctly.”
Yup. So the justified are not coterminous with the elect. So Arminians, Lutherans, RCs, EOs past and present along with all the church fathers blew it. But of course that’s no indication that Peter’s warning about distorting Paul could possibly apply to Calvinism – Rom 8:31 is so obvious and self-evident duh. So every non-Calvinist who denies your view on perseverance believes in unicorns and whiffle-dust and are doubting gospel-deniers. Lovely.
Darryl,
“It also explains why dogma doesn’t change. It doesn’t have to. No one follows it.”
Every time someone celebrates a sacrament, attends mass, reads Scripture, prays the divine office or rosary, etc., they follow it.
“pope’s prayer videos”
Can you tell me which dogma is denied or not followed in the pope’s prayers videos?
LikeLike
Clete,
So the justified are not coterminous with the elect. So Arminians, Lutherans, RCs, EOs past and present along with all the church fathers blew it.
Depends on the Arminian, Lutheran, RC, EO, and church father. But yeah, whoever denied that the justified are coterminous with the elect blew it. Big time.
But of course that’s no indication that Peter’s warning about distorting Paul could possibly apply to Calvinism – Rom 8:31 is so obvious and self-evident duh. So every non-Calvinist who denies your view on perseverance believes in unicorns and whiffle-dust and are doubting gospel-deniers. Lovely.
Sure it’s possible. Which is why we go to the text and exegete. It’s possible Calvinism is distorting Paul. Not likely, but not logically impossible. It’s also not logically impossible that the world is a virtual reality machine, but there’s good reason to believe it’s not.
Rom. 8:39: “nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” is pretty comprehensive. Nothing in creation can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. That really leaves you with only three options:
1. Calvinism
2. Universalism
3. God really wants to save you but your will is stronger than his love
I’ll go with #1
LikeLike
Susan,
<i.If we deviate from the consensus of the Father’s, in what way can we claim to be heirs of Christian Tradition?
We have to be holding to the consensus in order to claim the tradition of the Father’s.
Depends on what you mean and how you identify the consensus. But the fathers aren’t what is final definitional of Christianity—God is. And the fathers aren’t bearers of God’s special revelation. They are fallible interpreters of it, which is why you really can’t get even Rome to tell me what is infallible in Augustine and what isn’t.
So you hold to them where they agree with Scripture and reject them where they don’t. That’s exactly what Rome does, except substitute “magisterium” for “Scripture.”
Who is holding to the consensus of The Father’s?
First we have to determine what the consensus is. Does every church father have to believe something in order for it to be consensus? Obviously not, because then nobody would follow the consensus, Plenty of fathers disagree with both Protestants and RCs and EOs.
What I reject is the idea that the consensus of the Fathers is finally determinative of truth and that Rome tells me what the consensus is.
LikeLike
@Susan
There are at least three options regarding the consensus of the Fathers (ECFs):
1) it doesn’t matter. They are men just like us, so whatev… In fact those compromiseres were totally corrupt, so we should be skeptical of any beliefs that formed a consensus: solo scriptura
2) The holy spirit never left the church, but he his primary means of enlightening the church is through the passing on of an oral tradition from the apostles to today. Since less time passed between the apostles and the ECFs, they were more enlightened than us today, so we should always defer to their consensus – the historical majority view cannot be wrong: infallible tradition
3) The holy spirit never left the church, but everyone in the church is tainted by sin. We are limited by our culture and make all sorts of mistakes (think of Augustine’s view that women were not made in the Image of God or Tertullian’s unsavory views about women ). However, that doesn’t mean they didn’t get anything right either, and we are limited by our culture and make all sorts of mistakes as well. By looking back to the ECFs we have a chance to examine the scriptures through a different lens and perhaps rise above the prejudice of the contemporary. However, all of these men could (and did) err, so their perspectives (including those of popes and councils) have to be judged against scripture: Sola Scriptura
Now once one adopts one of these modes of engaging with the ECFs, one has to decide what counts as consensus and among whom. What still survives? How did their views evolve? Is it the consensus in a given age or across the ages? Is it one person in a generation sufficient to establish consensus? Who counts as an ECF? If I draw my target and then exclude people from various eras based on their disagreement with “orthodoxy”, then I am begging the question…oops! But if I include the ideas of every ordained church member, I find a huge about of variation (and not a small amount of heresy). But the fact that I judge who counts as an ECF on the basis of orthodoxy means that I can’t count them as support for what should count as orthodoxy. Uh oh… there goes one of the legs of the stool. And if history requires a standard by which to judge what counts and what doesn’t, then I can’t use history as an authority either…the magisterium is getting quite shaky – the MOCs just flew out the window. But of course if I need an authority that can provide a foundation for me so that I am justified in believing the scriptures I have trouble too – how do I identify the authority? History and tradition are out the window. I don’t even have scriptures now…YIKES! Maybe the problem is with foundationalism…
Maybe the Holy Spirit enlightens us and confirms for us God’s Word – the sheep know his voice! Further, perhaps we can learn from teachers (contemporary and historical) even while always testing everything against God’s Word. Of course, most people would rather rule in hell than bow in heaven (to co-opt Milton), and submitting to God’s Word goes against every fiber of our being (flesh) – thus most people do not see the Bible as a book that judges us, but rather a book to be judged by us. The fact that the way is narrow and there are few who find it (and have new hearts that bow in submission to their shepherd’s voice) is not evidence that this way is false…
LikeLike
Robert,
I was hoping you’d listen to the podcast I linked.
Was the liturgy of the Church and the rubric of The Mass held by consenus of the Father’s?
It seems to me that it is important to find out if it was part of eucharistic worship service from the very beginning. If it wasn’t, there should be record of it being an abomination and harshly dealt with since it is such a serious matter.
Last night I listened to a podcast by Scott Hahn about “the fourth cup”. It was an incredibly enlightening explanation about how Jesus celebrated Seder at Passover when he instituted the New Covenant. How after the cup of the third blessing, Jesus intentionally halted the Seder service to pray in the Garden, asking for the cup( the fourth cup; the one of consummation) be taken from Him. Then how He finally drank it on the cross, when wine was lifted up to him on hissop branches( ‘coincidentally’the same instrument the blood from the paschal lamb during the Passover sacrifice is sprinkled on the altar).
I have never heard such depth and breadth of scriptural knowledge.
Say what you want but it just makes sense.
If you are serious, you will dig deeper.
https://stpaulcenter.com/media/audio/the-fourth-cup
I’m out of here, again.
Peace,
Susan
LikeLike
sdb,
“Who counts as an ECF? … I include the ideas of every ordained church member, I find a huge about of variation”
I’ll make it simple. Can you name and cite some people from 100AD – 1000AD who held the justified could not lose their salvation and were coterminous with the elect? Since it’s apparently an “essential” to the gospel and thus perspicuous by some here, it shouldn’t be too difficult.
LikeLike
Susan,
Was the liturgy of the Church and the rubric of The Mass held by consenus of the Father’s?
I don’t understand this question. Was there a Eucharistic liturgy held in common by many fathers? Sure. Was it similar in at least some ways to RC and Protestant liturgies that followed. Sure. Does that means the fathers held to transubstantiation or consubstantiation or Calvin’s idea of spiritual presence? Or something else? Depends on the father. Does that mean the fathers held to the mass as an ongoing sacrifice of propitiation? Depends on the father.
We know there was no consensus beyond some very basic things about the Eucharist. Augustine held that in the Eucharist we offer up ourselves, which is very different from any notion of the priest offering up Christ. There goes “consensus” on what is being offered.
LikeLike
“We know there was no consensus beyond some very basic things about the Eucharist. Augustine held that in the Eucharist we offer up ourselves, which is very different from any notion of the priest offering up Christ. There goes “consensus” on what is being offered.”
Well, actually no it doesn’t. No need to be mutually exclusive. We do offer up ourselves as well. Did Augustine say that the Mass was idolatry? That’s the question.
What’s the good of the term “consensus”if nobody knows what things there is consensus about?
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme says: Ali,Was Paul engaging in false humility when he stated, “in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts” or “I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.”
oh Cletus, so be it; you prefer doubt, have doubt
as for me, I hear my Shepherd’s voice and He gives me complete assurance…. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. John 10:27-28
thanks, though, for the reminder in those passages you mention–definitely needed – for leaders to seek God’s approve alone, not man’s, watching their doctrine and life, for each one’s praise comes to him from… GOD. (1 Cor 4:5)
Have a good weekend , one not-TOO-much-in-doubt
LikeLike
Susan,
Did Augustine say that the Mass was idolatry? That’s the question.
Not that I’m aware of, but the mass in Augustine’s day isn’t the mass of Trent. I’m fairly certain that the Reformers didn’t condemn ancient liturgies, at least in any significant way. But the worship of the 2nd century wasn’t the same as the worship of the medieval church.
What’s the good of the term “consensus” if nobody knows what things there is consensus about?
It’s a fine term as long as it isn’t used artificially. Most RCs that I know who talk about the consensus of the fathers are very selective. There was a consensus that the bishop of Rome did not have universal jurisdictional authority. But you wouldn’t know that from reading RC apologists.
If you want to appeal to “consensus,” do it consistently. As it is, when RC apologists appeal to it, what they mean by consensus is anything that might possibly remotely look sorta Tridentine as long as you ignore other stuff they say that doesn’t sound so much like it.
If you want to talk about consensus among the orthodox, sure there was consensus on the deity of Christ and several other matters. There wasn’t consensus on justification, the Eucharist, the infallibility of the church, and a host of other issues. Basically the issues that still divide Prots and RCs. There was a reason why both sides could appeal to the fathers for support during the Reformation.
The use of patristic sources is fraught with problems depending on how you approach them. There are all sorts of unjustified and undefended assumptions that various sides bring to them. I’m still waiting for someone to prove that a fourth century writer is necessarily a better exegete than a twenty-first century writer, for instance. I’m still waiting for Rome to justify its picking and choosing of Augustine by anything other than what Rome says currently.
LikeLike
James Young, “Every time someone celebrates a sacrament, attends mass, reads Scripture, prays the divine office or rosary, etc., they follow it.”
You watched too much Stuart Smalley, obviously.
LikeLike
Susan, “Was the liturgy of the Church and the rubric of The Mass held by consenus of the Father’s?”
Hello. Some used Latin, some used Greek, some used Coptic.
Avoid (and THINK) associating Rome’s centralization of church life with the U.S. federal government’s nationalism.
LikeLike
James Young, that’s easy. Augustine.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Augustine wrote the following:
“It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children–whom He has regenerated in Christ–to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also.”
“The faith of these, which worketh by love, either actually does not fail at all, or, if there are any whose faith fails, it is restored before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is done away, and perseverance even to the end is allotted to them. But they who are not to persevere, and who shall so fall away from Christian faith and conduct that the end of this life shall find them in that case, beyond all doubt are not to be reckoned in the number of these, even in that season wherein they are living well and piously. For they are not made to differ from that mass of perdition by the foreknowledge and predestination of God, and therefore are not called according to God’s purpose, and thus are not elected”
“”Let the inquirer still go on, and say, ‘Why is it that to some who have in good faith worshipped Him He has not given to persevere to the end?'”
“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grevious sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest.”
Feel free to try again.
And if you THINK, you’d realize that various rites and churches within RCism have their own language, customs, etc in their liturgies – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_rites_and_churches – so your reply to Susan is off the mark.
LikeLike
James Young, good, you took the bait. You can find quotes. When I find papal quotes about the crusades or papal supremacy over the emperor, it’s only discipline.
Heck, think of it this way. Development of Augustine leads to Luther. Development works all sorts of ways. You’re so literal and so anachronistic. Catch up with your holy father.
LikeLike
Augustine via CVD:
Augustine wrote the following:
“It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children–whom He has regenerated in Christ–to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also.”
“The faith of these, which worketh by love, either actually does not fail at all, or, if there are any whose faith fails, it is restored before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is done away, and perseverance even to the end is allotted to them. But they who are not to persevere, and who shall so fall away from Christian faith and conduct that the end of this life shall find them in that case, beyond all doubt are not to be reckoned in the number of these, even in that season wherein they are living well and piously. For they are not made to differ from that mass of perdition by the foreknowledge and predestination of God, and therefore are not called according to God’s purpose, and thus are not elected” citing Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, ch16,18.
Let’s read this carefully.
According to Augustine, there are two groups. There are those who have faith that works by love. For this group, their faith does not fail, or else it is restored before life is ended.
Then there are those whose faith does fail. In this case, we find that they are at no time to be reckoned among those whose faith works by love; they are not made to differ from the mass of perdition.
So members of the second group (a) does not have faith that works through love, and (b) are no different from the mass of perdition.
Augustine’s words are perfectly consistent with Westminster, but not with the CCC.
In that same Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Augustine continues (ch 20)
Nor let it disturb us that to some of His children God does not give this perseverance. Be this far from being so, however, if these were of those who are predestinated and called according to His purpose,—who are truly the children of the promise. For the former, while they live piously, are called children of God; but because they will live wickedly, and die in that impiety, the foreknowledge of God does not call them God’s children. For they are children of God whom as yet we have not, and God has already, of whom the Evangelist John says, “that Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad;” and this certainly they were to become by believing, through the preaching of the gospel. And yet before this had happened they had already been enrolled as sons of God with unchangeable stedfastness in the memorial of their Father. And, again, there are some who are called by us children of God on account of grace received even in temporal things, yet are not so called by God; of whom the same John says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us, because if they had been of us they would, no doubt, have continued with us.” He does not say, “They went out from us, but because they did not abide with us they are no longer now of us;” but he says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us,”—that is to say, even when they appeared among us, they were not of us.
Augustine’s solution is identical to Calvin’s: There is a church as seen by God, and there is a church as seen by man; the former only are genuine believers. Those who depart were never of us.
It is clear that this group cannot be aside to be justified in God’s eyes in any meaningful sense. At most, Augustine would say that they appear to be justified in our sight.
The Roman Catholic solution is not identical to Augustine’s. In RC teaching, we ourselves must cooperate with grace in order to receive the grace of perseverance:
162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church. — CCC 162.
For Augustine, apostasy teaches that “the Lord knows who are His.” (Rebuke ch 16). For the CCC, apostasy teaches that we can make a shipwreck of our faith.
Night and day.
LikeLike
Erratum: It is clear that this group cannot be aside to be justified in God’s eyes in any meaningful sense
/s/aside/said
LikeLike
amen Jeff.
Jesus: All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:37,40
as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, John 1:12…The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, Rom 8:16… If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5: 9 -13
Cletus says: …that to some of His own children–…whom He has regenerated in Christ–….God does not give perseverance also.
selective quoting like that seems to indicate Cletus may prefer that kind of father. Can’t imagine why. What good earthly father would declare one a child and then say, oh never mind, you are no longer my child, how much will it never happen by our True heavenly Father… maybe that’s partly why Jesus said:
Little children, guard yourselves from idols.(1 John 5:21)
‘ course, also, if one follows the pope’s lead in calling everyone a ‘child of God…. confusion is going to reign.
LikeLike
Dang, Cletus. more doubt.
““Our main difference with Roman Catholicism is that we do not believe that the Pope has the power to sit on the throne and declare dogma,” Delvaux said. “The church is infallible only in the areas of faith and morals; we can trust what the church teaches, but the Pope cannot have infallibility on his own.” He explained that most people in the Independent Catholic movement believe that Papal decrees are only infallible when they are made with the consensus of a council of bishops.”
http://www.signaltribunenewspaper.com/?p=1381
LikeLike
sdb says:
April 20, 2016 at 9:18 pm
“Considering the majority of Christians past and present disagree with your view of the justified and assurance…”
The way is wide that leads to destruction… Maybe being the biggest ain’t all that?>>>>>
Does Scripture support your view of justification and assurance or not?
Remember. The JWs are small as well. Not speaking against them personally, but against their Arianism.
Given the fact that justification by faith alone is presented in a very negative light in Scripture, maybe you need to rethink Luther’s theology. Maybe he is the one who needs to be put in the dock.
Remember. Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were not in his canon of Scripture. What does that tell you? Why would you follow his lead on “justification by faith alone”?
You don’t even have to be a Catholic to notice his glaring errors, not the least of which is taking away from and adding to Scripture.
Sola fide? Sola scriptura? What faith and what Scripture?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart says:
April 19, 2016 at 4:30 pm
Mermaid, catch up. The bishops at Trent did not believe in the priesthood of believers:
And if any one affirm, that all Christians indiscrimately are priests of the New Testament, or that they are all mutually endowed with an equal spiritual power, he clearly does nothing but confound the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is as an army set in array; as if, contrary to the doctrine of blessed Paul, all were apostles, all prophets, all evangelists, all pastors, all doctors.>>>>
1. Exactly. Not all believers are ordained priests, as in authorized to administer the visible sacraments, especially that of the Holy Eucharist.
—————————
CHAPTER I.
On the institution of the Priesthood of the New Law.
Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the ordinance of God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in every law. Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed, that there is, in that Church, a new, visible, and external priesthood, into which the old has been translated. And the sacred Scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, was the power delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering His Body and Blood, as also of forgiving and of retaining sins.
Council of Trent
————————————————————-
2. All believers are called priests as Scripture states, but not all are ordained to the visible priesthood. One kind of priesthood does not rule out the other. All believers are able to offer spiritual sacrifices.
——————————–
Reply to Objection 2. A devout layman is united with Christ by spiritual union through faith and charity, but not by sacramental power: consequently he has a spiritual priesthood for offering spiritual sacrifices, of which it is said (Psalm 1:19): “A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit”; and (Romans 12:1): “Present your bodies a living sacrifice.” Hence, too, it is written (1 Peter 2:5): “A holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices.”
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica III – Article 1
——————————————–
D. G. Hart says:
April 19, 2016 at 4:31 pm
Mermaid, consider that your love feels like pity.>>>>>
There is always an element of pity mixed with love. As you like to say, life is hard. We’re all in this together, and all seeking God’s will for us. Well, at least all serious Christians. Pity is not a bad thing.
However, I don’t feel sorry for you guys if you are happy in your faith in Christ. Why should I? I am sorry that you don’t wish to actually study Catholic theology, but that is your choice.
“Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to get through this thing called life.”
– Prince
I know you’re a fan. 😉 The quote sounds quite 2Kish.
LikeLike
Mermaid, “I am sorry that you don’t wish to actually study Catholic theology, but that is your choice.”
Ah, but it spares us having to study Francis and John XXIII.
LikeLike
A modern-day Rex?
LikeLike
What happens when the pope refuses your call to communion:
Why the Roman Catholic church isn’t reformed.
LikeLike