Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, as become Catholic. Dr. Beckwith was raised Catholic but became an Evangelical Protestant in youth. After a review of Catholic theology and its basis, however, he has been reconciled with the Church.
I recently learned of Dr. Beckwith’s intention to pursue reconciliation. Apparently my own humble writings were of use to him in his journey, and he was kind enough to say so. In view of the sensitivity of the situation, however, I of course agreed to refrain from making the matter publicly known. He also was kind enough to let me know just before he went to the sacrament of reconciliation.
Last night I received a note from Dr. Beckwith indicating that the matter had become public, and so I would like to offer warm felicitations regarding his return to full communion with the Church.
The source through which the matter was made public happened to be James White’s blog, and as you can imagine, Mr. White is not happy.
In particular Mr. White raises the question of what Dr. Beckwith will do given his present status as head of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Prior to his reconciliation, Dr. Beckwith shared his thoughts on that matter with me, and though I will let him speak for himself on the subject, I will say that he intends to handle the matter in a gracious and frank manner and has already taken steps in that direction.
On his blog, Mr. White questions whether Dr. Beckwith could remain a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, writing as follows:
Let’s ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write ‘the Bible alone’ in the statement of faith?" The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:
"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."
Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn’t want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole’s dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura.
Mr. White is correct about the text of the ETS statement of faith or "doctrinal foundation." It’s found online here.
While the ultimate interpretation of this statement is up to the ETS itself, I would point out two things:
1) The statement of a single founder, such as Dr. Nicole, regarding the interpretation of such a statement is analogous to that of a single founding father regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it is not of itself conclusive, however enthusiastically Mr. White and his friend might receive it.
2) If the founders of the ETS intended to exclude Catholics from the organization, they did not frame their doctrinal foundation in a way that would, in fact, block Catholics from being able to agree to it.
The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written (as opposed to the Word of God Incarnate, the word of God in nature, or the word of God handed on through the Church in parallel to Scripture). Only Scripture is divinely inspired such that every assertion of the sacred authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Bible is inerrant in the autographs. And, of course, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.
There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.
This situation will, of course, be very sensitive for members of the Evangelical Theological Society and its leadership, as well as for Dr. Beckwith and his family, and I ask readers to keep the matter in prayer.
At the hour I write, Dr. Beckwith has not posted on Right Reason, a blog in which he participates, regarding his return to full communion, and I do not know if he will do so, but I invite my readers to watch that blog for possible updates and to offer their felicitations to Dr. Beckwith in the combox below.
VISIT RIGHT REASON.
Dr Beckwith, Francis, our brother – God be with you in this time which will be so painful and puzzling for many of your friends in evangelical circles.
You are in our prayers and wrapped round with welcome. Enjoy your extending horizons. James
Forgot to say – Ad multos annos!
Well fantastic! I must remember to pray for this individual.
I don’t follow Jimmy’s reasoning. The statement that the Bible alone is the “Word of God written and is therefore innerant” would exclude magisterial statements of the Catholic Church. The logical conclusion is that magisterial teachings, including teachings from Church tradition, are not innerant. This contradicts a Catholic understanding of divine revelation.
My favorite from Mister White’s (yes MISTER … if he won’t call the priests he debates “father,” I’m under no obligation to accept his “doctor” prefix) hissy-fit is this little gem:
“But over time, if one is apathetic about the truth of the gospel, God may well bring judgment to bear in causing one to love a lie.”
I’m aware of the Pauline phrasiology with regard to homosexual lust being a judgment from God, but, come on! God causes no one to “love a lie.”
I also love this bit about the Mass:
“And more to the point, ‘Do you really believe you can approach the Mass 20,000 times in your life and still die impure, and that this re-presentation is the same sacrifice as the perfect work you once professed to embrace?'”
How the aych-ee-double-hockey-sticks does that even approach logic??? The people in attendance AT CALVARY were clearly not purified then and there. That’s why most of ’em ran away. Fear is impurity (or at least a sign thereof). They had to wait ’til Pentecost for strength and even THEN they weren’t purified.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a group that calls itself “Evangelical” and says that
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
is attempting to exclude Catholics (and some others).
John’s point is also correct.
In addition, if Dr. Beckwith does in fact accept the current Catholic view of Scripture as taught by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, it is questionable whether he could in good conscience maintain the inerrancy of the autographs.
However, if the ETS is going to keep Clark Pinnock as a member, then it might as well keep Beckwith as president.
Non sequitur. The sentences reads: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” From this it may be understood that [a] only the Bible is the word of God written (this is true) and that [b] only the Bible is therefore inerrant (i.e., inerrant because the word of God written). Grammatically and logically it does not follow that the Bible alone is inerrant — only that nothing else is inerrant due to being the word of God written.
Bold,
You’re being confusing. The document attributes inerrancy as an aspect to the word of God, but does not restrict it to that.
Example:
Jesus alone is the Only Begotten of the Father and is therefore God.
It is not follow that only Jesus is God.
Yes, that’s what I said.
Whether one or several founding members were “attempting to exclude Catholics” is one thing; whether they succeeded in formulating a statement of faith that is in fact exclusive of what the Catholic Church teaches is something else.
Why am I not surprised to find you agreeing with John? However, you are both wrong, as noted above.
Why, Jeb, what exactly are you thinking of that the PBC has “taught” as “the current Catholic view” that is contrary to the teaching of inerrancy clearly set forth in Dei Verbum? References to teaching documents, please, not private opinions of individual members. Put up or shut up.
A alone is B.
All B is C.
The only conclusion we can validly draw?
A is C.
It does not follow that A alone is C.
The sentence reads:
“The Bible ALONE, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
Which logically leads to the claim that no book except the Bible can claim to be: (1) inerrant; and (2) the word of God.
The Catholic church does claim that certain written documents (such as those that proclaimed the assumption of the BVM and the immaculate conception) are inerrant. This contradicts the ETS position.
SDG,
The appropriate response is the Pontifical Biblical Commission has been deprived of magisterial authority for some time. From Wikipedia:
“On June 27, 1971, the Apostolic Letter Sedula Cura (“On New Laws Regulating the Pontifical Biblical Commission – June 27, 1971) was issued. This letter stated that henceforth the Pontifical Biblical Commission was no longer an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church, but merely a consultative body of scholars.”
It’s an advisory body, just like the ITC. I take it he’s referrring to the document on the Interpretation of Scripture which appears to embrace limited errancy and a distinction between the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history. See for yourself:
“Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.”
and
“In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus).”
And what about the widespread abuse of Vatican II to justify the limited inerrancy of Scripture, and limiting that to matters of faith?
Or you could refer to the Bishop’s committee document on the Passion, that was trumpted about when the Passion of the Christ came out.
“First, it must be understood that the gospel authors did not intend to write “history” in our modern sense, but rather “sacred history” (i.e., offering “the honest truth about Jesus”) (Notes IV, 29 A) in light of revelation. To attempt to utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one gospel and the next from another gospel, and so forth, is to risk violating the integrity of the texts themselves, just as, for example, it violates the sense of Genesis 1 to reduce the magnificence of its vision of the Creation to a scientific theorem.”
“Often, what we have come to know from biblical scholarship or historical studies will place in doubt a more literalist reading of the biblical text. Here again, the hermeneutical principles of Nostra Aetate, the Guidelines, and the Notes should be of “overriding” concern. One such question suggests itself by way of example. This is the portrait of Pontius Pilate (cf. sec. A 3, above). It raises a very real problem of methodology in historical reconstruction of the events of Jesus’ last days.”
There are lots of heterodox-leaning documents on Scripture emanating from Catholic sources, and it causes a lot of scandal.
The “current Catholic view” is indeed scandalous. Look no further than the New American Bible. But such things are not official Church teaching.
I meant to say:
“The Catholic church does claim that certain written documents (such as those that proclaimed the assumption of the BVM and the immaculate conception) are inerrant & the word of God. This contradicts the ETS position.”
Sorry, Jeb, but this inversion of the sentence is not grammatically or logically equivalent to the original, besides which you dropped the word “written” and thus further distorted the actual grammatical meaning of the sentence. You have a track record of not knowing how to read, and you confirm it here.
Most significantly, your inverted paraphrase drops the phrase “is therefore,” establishing a logical relationship between the two clauses (much like the key section in Dei Verbum!).
If the sentence merely said “The Bible alone is the word of God written and inerrant,” you would be right, but “is the word of God written and is therefore inerrant” does not have the same force. If you don’t follow this, you don’t need theology lessons or even logic lessons, you need grammar lessons.
Jeb,
I know what you want argue, but it just doesn’t follow from the way the text was written. Perhaps the writers were incompotent, but the text is what it is.
“The Bible ALONE, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
Which logically leads to the claim that no book except the Bible can claim to be: (1) inerrant; and (2) the word of God.”
The only thing you can logically conclude is that the Bible alone, in its entireity, is the written Word of God.
Inerrancy is a property of the written Word of God, but it does not follow, from what has been said, that it is an exclusive property of the written word of God.
Maybe that’s what the writers intended, but it’s not what they wrote.
Sorry, Jeb, you’re flat wrong. The documents proclaiming the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are infallible, but they are not the word of God. They merely proclaim and set forth the word of God. You do not know what you are talking about here.
This is where an honest Protestant would admit that he made an honest mistake about Catholic teaching. Is it in you?
Jeb,
The Catholic church does not claim that infallible decrees are the Word of God. The Word of God means much more than just being “without error.”
SDG,
Do you believe that Cardinal Ratzigner’s views that Paul didn’t write the pastorals, there are three Isaiahs, and the creation account in Genesis 1 comes from the period of the Babylonian captivity are contrary to church teaching? Apparently he didn’t think they contradicted Dei Verbum.
“The documents proclaiming the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are infallible, but they are not the word of God. They merely proclaim and set forth the word of God. You do not know what you are talking about here.”
I could just as well say that the Bible isn’t the Word of God, it merely proclaims the Word of God. In some sense that’s true. On the other hand, the popes who proclaimed these two dogmas were putting them on the same level as scripture and the ets says no other document can be on that level.
“46. In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown.”
“47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
I infallibly knew that this conversation would pull our friend Jeb out of the woodwork (along with his usual hobby horse about the 3 Isaiahs). And now I have written it down. I must be the Word of God, or something.
Welcome home, Dr Beckwith. The Church is better off with you than she was without!
I also wanted to say that I love James White. The way the word “Rome” rolls off his tongue is priceless. Just like some other four letter words that shouldn’t be mentioned.
Jeb,
You need to see the distinction between inspiration, infallibility, and revelation. Catholics believe only Holy Scripture is inspired.
To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.
Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.
Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ’s promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching. ”
This what Catholics believe about Scripture:
Vatican I:
“These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such.” (Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787).
Pope Leo XIII:
“The Holy Ghost Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up and impelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them while writing in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly, and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing else; without that, God would not be the author of Scripture in its entirety” (Encycl. Provid. Deus, in Dena., 1952).
I hope that a Protestant, could agree to the above two quotations. Can you? Reading these, it is absurd to claim that the proclamation of the Assumption, or the Immaculate Conception is put on par with Holy Scripture.
One thing that jumped out at me is that James White uses the same types of fallacy that RadTrads (and I’m sure others) use:
James White: “Now, I personally have little interest in the Lenten argument (outside of noting the gross abuse of such an idea inherent in Mardi Gras and the insight that provides into the thinking of many in the Roman communion)”
Hypothetical RadTrad: “Now, I personally have little interest in calling the NO Mass invalid (outside of noting the gross abuse of the time before Mass that should be used for prayer–not gossip–and the insight that provides into the thinking of many who participate in the NO)”
I think we all note the abuse, but it doesn’t say anything about Lent itself. Nor can it be said that the abusers represent the whole or the ideal. That’s like me saying, “I hate apples, I tried 5 bruised and rotten ones and they all tasted awful.”
The post is as follows:
“There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.
This situation will, of course, be very sensitive for members of the Evangelical Theological Society and its leadership, as well as for Dr. Beckwith and his family, and I ask readers to keep the matter in prayer.”
What exactly does this mean? Is Dr Beckwith going to be recatechised? Is he a “Catholic” because the church has now in the name of ecumenism basically lowered her standards on what exactly a “Catholic” should be as JPII has already done with the Anglicans even after Popes prior to him refuted them and Saints such as Thomas Moore died at the hands of Kings rather than succomb to the Anglican church, but JPII in one felt swoop said enough! Communion and bring your married priests, gay priests and woman ministers with you!
What is the exact purpose of this thread anyway as it really means little the way I see it. After all JPII’s vision was a “New World Order” with a “One World Religion” and does not “Novus Ordo” mean “New Order” a term the church after Vatican II took upon themselves to coin?>
Good for you, Dr. Beckwith! Congrats, and my family and I are praying for you and yours.
The most troubling quote from Mr. White’s blog entry for me was this one: “But the gospel is different. It speaks of attributes of God’s character that the natural man does not have the capacity to truly love. It strikes at the heart of man’s arrogance, it removes, by its emphasis upon powerful, effective, sovereign grace, any ground of boasting in the man. But over time, if one is apathetic about the truth of the gospel, God may well bring judgment to bear in causing one to love a lie.”
Reread that last sentence, if you will. God bringing judgment to bear by causing one to love a lie? Does that sound like God to anyone else? Where does this guy get his material? Am I way off here?
Whatever opinions I or Cardinal Ratzinger may hold on the issues you mention are spectacularly irrelevant to your claims about what the PBC has “taught” regarding the “current Catholic view of scripture.” Don’t try to change the subject. Can you or can you not produce actual teaching documents to substantiate your claims?
Not only is this rank dishonesty, ironically, in your zeal for sola scriptura, or rather to attack the Church, you are actually impugning the written word of God. You’re so anti-Catholic, you’re actually attacking scripture in order to attack the Church. You’re so eager to equate papal bulls with scripture in Catholic teaching, you will actually deny that scripture is the word of God in order to do it.
Unlike you, the Catholic Church unequivocally proclaims that scripture not only proclaims the word of God, it is the word of God, inasmuch as, being divinely inspired, it has God as its Author and all that is asserted by the human author is asserted by the Holy Spirit (DV 11). This cannot be said of papal bulls or other infallible church decrees, which are not divinely inspired and have only men, not God, as their Author, and are thus at best proclaim the word of God without themselves being the word of God. (God is merely their Editor, not their Author; He supernaturally keeps error out, He doesn’t inspire the writers to put truth in. Whatever divine truth is in them is in them by the same human agency that puts divine truth into any human documents we produce.)
If you feel that’s a non-difference, you haven’t yet fully grasped the authority and nature of scripture as the inspired word of God.
I repeat: This is where an honest Protestant would admit that he had made a mistake. Whether or not your mistake was an honest one should be clear one way or the other by how you face up to your error.
I know you love him John, but it is St. Thomas More who was beheaded at the hands of King Henry VIII.
And I have no doubt that the saintly lawyer and statesman would welcome Dr. Beckwith into the fold with open arms, much as we find the prodigal father doing in the Gospel of Luke.
John,
No one in here except you interpreted Jimmy’s post to say:
What is the exact purpose of this thread anyway as it really means little the way I see it. After all JPII’s vision was a “New World Order” with a “One World Religion” and does not “Novus Ordo” mean “New Order” a term the church after Vatican II took upon themselves to coin?
We don’t have the details of how Dr. Beckwith returned to the Church, it sounds like he’s chosen to keep the details private. If he was confirmed in the Church when he was younger I imagine he came back to the Church through the sacrament of repentance. If he didn’t receive all the sacraments in his youth, I would guess he went through RCIA and rejoined the Church at Easter.
How do you propose people should return to the Church?
I think there is an issue.
Isn’t Sacred Tradition considered to be part of the Word of God? Wasn’t the canon of scripture part of this tradition? Something these protestants REJECT as infallible?
They reject Sacred Tradition as infallible, while they accept parts of it to suit their tastes 🙂
Abortion wrong? Tradition. Trinity? Tradition. Canon of Scripture? Tradition.
In fact, they have their own traditions, because sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
http://www.mark-shea.com/6.html is a great
“Reread that last sentence, if you will. God bringing judgment to bear by causing one to love a lie? Does that sound like God to anyone else? Where does this guy get his material? Am I way off here?”–
Try Romans I:18-28.
Sounds like God to me!…
*continued*
Mark Shea’s site is a great resource which explains how protestants accept Tradition while at the same time they reject it 🙂
Reread that last sentence, if you will. God bringing judgment to bear by causing one to love a lie? Does that sound like God to anyone else? Where does this guy get his material? Am I way off here?
While I think White’s judgment of Catholics is wrong, I don’t see anything wrong with this sentence. Let’s say I reject absolute truth for relativism and over time become more obstinate in my decision. God may then strengthen my love of relativism and hatred of the Truth, in effect making my own decision my punishment. As Erick said, it fits with Romans.
Thanks be to God & welcome home to Dr. Beckwith.
Did anyone else notice in White’s post that his supposedly tough questions for converts were pretty easy to answer and that some of their underlying assumptions contained some very elementary errors?
The average-joe C.A. apologist could answer them easily.
That last comment should read:
“The average joe C.A. FORUM apologist could answer them easily.”
2 + 2 = 4
The above written statement is inerrant.
It is not inspired and not the word of God.
The two are not linked by necessity. The Catholic Church does not claim that her magisterial documents are inspired or that they are the word of God, only that they are – by the Divine will – protected from error. That’s all.
No, I disagree, erick and Brian. unto” and “causing.” God will not “cause” us to love anything that is not of God. God gives us free will and He will not stop us from sinning, but He will not cause us to sin.
There is a difference between God “giving up
It’s like our own children. We can educate them about drugs. We can set a good example for them. In the end, however, we aren’t going to follow them around around 24-7-365 to make sure they never touch the stuff.
Francis Beckwith returned to the Church after private counseling with a wonderful priest. He did not go through RCIA because he had already been confirmed. His wife entered the Church with him.
Kevin,
I think it may come down to semantics. Erick and I interpreted it as meaning the same type of thing as Romans, while you interpreted it to say that God actually causes sin. It’s hard to say exactly which one White meant from such a short quote. It wasn’t the focus of his article and he didn’t offer any more detail.
Just to help me understand… How does what White said and Romans I:18-28 relate to when God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to always refuse Moses’s demands and chase after the Jews as they crossed the Red Sea. Is that the same thing as Romans?
Exactly, Kevin from Ohio. God will never tempt anyone to sin, but will allow them, through the abuse of their free will, to follow sinful paths and disordered passions.
But this is really straining at gnats. The point is, the plain meaning of the ETS statement of faith contains nothing that a faithful Catholic could not enthusiastically embrace.
I am an Orthodox Christian but I congratulate Dr. Beckwith on his return to apostolic, sacramental Christianity. May God grant him and his family many happy years.
congratulations, Dr. Beckwith! We’ll keep you in our prayers.
This is very good news, Jimmy. Thank you for sharing it, and praise God for his inestimable grace!
I also got a real kick out of the way the ETS statement on sola scriptura was written in a way that orthodox Catholics can enthusiastically agree with it.
“Now, I personally have little interest in the Lenten argument (outside of noting the gross abuse of such an idea inherent in Mardi Gras and the insight that provides into the thinking of many in the Roman communion)”
Translation: “MacArthur drank the Chick Kool-Aid and was embarrassingly wrong. But I won’t be caught dead calling him on it, as it would deprive me of an opportunity to slag Romanism, which I will do now by mentioning the excesses of Mardi Gras.”
White is as predictable as a metronome, but much less interesting.
Mr. White’s post is interesting. It contains just about every one of the little things he does when it comes to Catholicism all in one post. It’s almost as though he had an emotional eruption, of sorts, and all of his qualities in regards to Catholicism came out at once.
Actually, there is no issue, for two reasons.
First, the statement says that the Bible alone is the word of God written. Traditionally, sacred tradition is characterized as what was handed on in unwritten form, although of course later writings may bear witness to the truths of tradition just as they do the truths of scripture.
But second, and more importantly, while it is correct to say that the word of God is handed on in both scripture and tradition, there is an important sense in which sacred scripture alone is the word of God, whereas tradition is not the word of God, but contains and attests the word of God.
Dei Verbum says unequivocally that sacred scripture is the word of God. The Church does not speak in such strong terms even of tradition, though tradition and scripture together form the sources of faith and the deposit of revelation.
Agreed, Tim J. I really wasn’t dealing with that part of the discussion. I was letting other people handle that one. I was more curious about one portion of Mr. White’s blog entry that I took issue with.
Brian, good question. I’m not ashamed to say that I don’t have a ready answer for you, but if I’m still thinking about it later tonight when I’m not at work I’ll try to put together a few thoughts about it.
If you feel that’s a non-difference, you haven’t yet fully grasped the authority and nature of scripture as the inspired word of God.
***
the plain meaning of the ETS statement of faith contains nothing that a faithful Catholic could not enthusiastically embrace.
Are we sure? The Catholic understanding of the phrase “word of God written” is very well articulated in this tread. But is it fair to say that’s the only “plain meaning”? If a writing is inerrant because of God’s direct protection, wouldn’t it at least be fair for non-Catholics to regard it as the “word of God?”
Protestants haven’t developed any kind of belief akin to the “negative protection” if papal infallibility, have they? So they don’t necessarily have a neat category into which to put it. Would it really be objectively unreasonable for them to expand their understanding of “word of God written” to say that if God had protected any writings in that way (instead of directly inspiring them like Scripture), they would also be His “word written?”
I’m not saying that’s what the ETS statement really means. I’m just saying that I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that it doesn’t mean that. And even if it did mean that, I’m not expressing any view on whether a member of ETS who comes to interpret those words differently (i.e., according to their “Catholic” meaning) would have to do about it.
Welcome back, Dr. Beckwith! We are rejoicing that one of the “lost sheep” has returned to the flock. 🙂
Addendum: so you don’t have to believe that scripture and infallible church documents have the same level of authority, inspiration, or anything else in order for them both to fall into a category of divinely-connected documents you call the “word of God written.”
All the best to you, Dr. Beckwith!
Vatican II on this point of the Word of God:
Dei Verbum:
“9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)
10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”
Only if they’re willing to own up to a lower view of “the word of God” than the Church’s. And even then they would have to admit that the Church’s view of scripture is something higher than the Church’s view of infallible definitions, so that Catholics don’t regard infallible definitions as equal to scripture.
In other words, a Protestant like Jeb might conceivably make an argument like this: “The Catholic Church teaches that papal bulls and other definitive documents are protected from error by the Holy Spirit, and in my book that makes them effectively equal to the word of God. Of course the Catholic Church claims that they aren’t really equal to the word of God because in their view the word of God is actually something more exalted, but it’s all the same as far as I’m concerned.”
Of course, few anti-Catholic polemicists would ever be quite so frank and even-handed as all that.
Joe S, bless you for your charitable and irenic response. As a Roman Catholic I feel much the same way when a Protestant comes into apostolic, sacramental Christianity in Eastern Orthodoxy.
Francis,
The text does not definite “Word of God written.” Perhaps this was intentional, as this statement of faith is clearly a minimalist account designed to include as many people as possible.
The text says the Bible alone is the “Word of God written.”
It says that the “word of God written” is inerrant.
That is all.
Do the evangelicals understand more than this? Do they hold more nuanced views? No doubt. But their writing does not reflect that. The purpose of a statement of faith is to clearly and unambiguous set forth your principles.
Their statement failed to do that. Grammatically and logically, it does maintain the (ultimately incoherent) Protestant principle of sola scriptura.
Here’s a question: What would it take to make the ETS’s statement of faith exclude Catholics. Is there a way to to it–without being explicitly anti-Catholic–that wouldn’t also exclude some of their own members?
I don’t understand this. It seems to contradict the rest of your post. Did you mean to write “does not maintain”?
I’m very happy about this. I spent the summer when I was eighteen reading Francis Beckwith’s “Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights” which is *the* book on abortion arguments. There are a number of books on the subject, but what makes Beckwith’s stand out is that it’s incredibly in-depth and well-reasoned. You can find plenty of stuff to refute a lot of arguments like “It’s just a bunch of cells” or “If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one”, but Beckwith goes deep into the philosophic underpinnings of some of the most insiduous arguments.
Anyway, I’m happy to hear that someone whose writings were so useful to me has found the Church.
I think this would do it, in at least two different ways: “The Bible, in all its parts, is the sole word of God, and in its autographs is alone inerrant.” (The first clause leaves out “written,” thereby excluding the word of God in unwritten form, and the second part clearly proposes that only the Bible is inerrant.)
“The Bible, in all its parts, is the sole word of God, and in its autographs is alone inerrant.”
Does this deny Christ as the Word of God? The original statement defines the bible as the sole written Word of God, which doesn’t create any conflict with Christ being the true Word and the bible being the written form of that Word as it was revealed to us. Or is all that implied when saying the Bible is the sole Word of God?
I’ve gotten in a little over my head here, so if I said anything wrong please correct me.
The irony is that while they rail against the Catholic Church’s way of doing things, and claim to hold to sola scriptura, in reality, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.
They have the Scriptures.
They have their interpretation of the Scripture(which is not written anywhere in the Scripture, if it were, it would be considered scripture) Since this is not Scripture, this is their Tradition.
Then there’s always someone (whether it is the individual, or their pastor, or whatever) who declares if the interpretation is correct. Some protestants will claim it is the Holy Spirit (but who declared it was the Holy Spirit?)
This person doing this declaration is their magisterium.
Let’s see. Scripture. Tradition. Magisterium. Yup. That’s the Catholic model.
They rail against the Catholic Model yet they practice it 🙂
Sola scriptura cannot be practiced as they have their own traditions and their own magisteriums, and no firm definition of sola scriptura that all sola scripturists accept 🙂
I think this would do it, in at least two different ways: “The Bible, in all its parts, is the sole word of God, and in its autographs is alone inerrant.” (The first clause leaves out “written,” thereby excluding the word of God in unwritten form, and the second part clearly proposes that only the Bible is inerrant.)
Careful.
My math test can also be inerrant–free from error–if I score 100%.
“How the aych-ee-double-hockey-sticks does that even approach logic”
Of course it’s not logic — we shouldn’t expect logic from Protestants because logic has a nasty habit of getting in the way of incoherent dogmas. Thus, it was the first thing Luther threw out (White’s post alludes to this with a jab at the Catholic use of philosophy).
As for this White fellow, all I can do is quote Bugs Bunny: “what a maroon.”
Congrats, Doctor Beckwith!
A very warm welcome to Dr. Beckwith. I have admired his writings for many years: particularly in the area of abortion and infanticide and euthanasia. I had cited his writings in that regard on my website years ago. The ones I linked to had nothing directly to do with Catholicism. These were ethical issues that all serious Christians (including White himself, who is a pro-lifer) and even good secular men could readily agree with — lest Bishop White imply that Dr. Beckwith’s Catholic leanings were evident all those years because (GASP!) someone like myself cited them.
When I see someone making profoundly right arguments about life issues, then it is never a surprise at all to me when they become a Catholic, because I went through the same process myself: I was delighted to acknowledge that the Catholic Church taught the most sublime and correct moral theology of any Christian body even before I was a Catholic.
Since Christianity has a lot to do with teaching morals and ethics, this becomes in and of itself a powerful testimony for both the truthfulness of Catholicism and the fact that the Catholic Church alone has preserved the complete moral and ethical teaching of the early Church. It isn’t even arguable. Thus, it might be opined that Dr. Beckwith has simply merged his ecclesiology with his ethics in a more harmonious and satisfactory fashion. Now he is in the Church that fully upholds and promulgates the morality that he has been boldly, heroically championing for years.
SDG, thank you. Also, I thank you for your lucid posts on Scripture and Tradition. I think I would, in essence, agree with you, though we might have some subtle differences in our views.
SDG,
Correct. I meant “does not.” My original autographs are far from inerrant. 🙂
To have an effective statement, they’d have to choose something more precise than “Word of God,” which is ambiguous. I wager they used “written” because Jesus is the Word of God, what he spoke spoke those were the words of God, etc. What you formulated would make the Bible take the place of Our Lord.
Further, the divergence of views from High-Church Anglicans to those of Reformed Baptists on the subject has to be included.
Clearly the statement is finding things that such a divergent group could agree on. Don’t want to knock out the Anglicans who believe in the value of tradition, don’t want to offend the implicit Nestorians, etc.
Speaking of Nestorians, notice how the statement of belief mentions the Trinity but doesn’t mention the Incarnation, or Jesus. We’re not even getting to mere orthodox Christianity, which traditionally affirmed the Trinity and the Incarnation as foundational truths.
For an example of how Evangelics tried to unite around principles in 1846, see:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.v.viii.html
These two, taken from that document, would suffice:
“1. The Divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures.
‘2. The right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.”
Interesting to see how much more irenical the Evangelical Society is today than distant forbears.
I would say that the clear intent of the wording was to exclude Catholic and Orthodox believers, even if the literal meaning of the words does not. Therefore I think he would do best to resign.
I also see from his webpage that he is supposed to begin a new position at Baylor (may have been there previously but is changing jobs there?) in June 2007. Is this the school that previously fired a professor who converted to Catholicism? Somebody may come back and say, “No, that was_________College.” I admit I am not really up on Protestant colleges. But I wonder whether he will also pay a cost to his academic career for returning to the Church.
I wonder why Jimmy tolerates “John” above (not JohnD) who spouts nonsense about Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, and further nonsense about the Pastoral Provision and the Anglican Use. Jimmy is extraordinarily tolerant. How silly of this John to think that Dr. Beckwith made this move without studying all of the disputed theological issues, or without thoroughly questioning himself as to whether he can honestly accept the teachings of the Church.
Thank God for Dr. Beckwith and let us all say a prayer for him in whatever difficulties this brings to him. I am sure it is also bringing him joy, so let us rejoice with him.
We should remember that those who disagree are doing so out of zeal for Christ, and deserve only our prayers, not our scorn, even when in mistaken zeal they speak harshly of us.
Susan Peterson
Thanks, Joe S. It’s possible that there may be subtle differences in our views. At the same time, different idioms and manners of expression, more than differences of substance, might also be a factor. (I am here using the formulations of my Western tradition, but the thought behind them is not inextricably wedded to these formulations.)
FWIW, I have a warm appreciation for Eastern Christianity — warmer, I think, than some of my Orthodox friends feel for Western Christianity! — and in general my feeling is that the actual substantial and essential disagreements between our two communions, though not negligible, are substantially less formidable than is often appreciated.
The ETS fell out of evangelical Christianity a year or so ago when they would not remove the “Open Theists” — temporal henotheists and no true monotheists, from the ETS. At that time, those who still held to Biblical inerrancy, left the ETS.
If the ETS has room for people who have put themselves outside of historic monotheism, I don’t see why they would have any trouble with Roman Catholics – unless of course, the Catholics are too orthodox for them. . .
I suspect that Catholics were not on the mind all that much when the ETS was founded. The big danger then (and now) are those who call themselves evangelicals, but who think that the Bible has error in it, especially when it goes against the spirit of the age.
John is obviously a RadTrad, lying about John Paul the Great, and about the Anglicans.
John White is obviously a Calvinist and presumably reads the Bible through the filter of TULIP.
Actually, from what has been posted from Vatican I and Dei Verbum, the Catholic position is compatible with sola Scriptura supra omne. Or so it appears. Me, miss something? Most likely.
BobCatholic, your attack on sola Scriptura appears to me to be incoherant, and not in keeping with the authentic teachings of the Church.
Paul, the first thing Luther threw out was buying grace with money. He didn’t think that what Tetzel was doing was in keeping with Church teaching – and he was right.
but it’s all the same as far as I’m concerned
This refers to what the Protestant thinks of what a Catholic believes about infallible Church documents and Scripture, right? So– granting that the Protestant understands the Catholic teaching about the difference between the two– I don’t have a hard time imagining him saying that the both fall into the same category, of the “word of God written.” His belief that the Bible is the only thing in that category would turn not on his definition of the category, but just on his conviction that there’s nothing else in it.
Is this underestimating the Protestant desire to put Scripture in a sui generis category? Jeb?
>BobCatholic, your attack on sola Scriptura appears to me to be incoherant, and not in keeping with the authentic teachings of the Church
Please explain.
The relativism of sola scriptura prevents sola scripturists from having a firm definition of what sola scriptura means. How can one practice a doctrine that cannot be defined?
And if I then take the original definition of Sola Scriptura, its latin definition (meaning “scripture alone”) then it cannot be practiced, as traditions and magisteriums are used by sola scripturists.
Puzzled,
I agree that BobCatholic’s post was imperfectly expressed, but I think he’s right as far as he goes. Since Scripture must be subject to interpretation, both Catholics and sola Scriptura Protestants in fact resort to reason and tradition as tools. Catholics, at least acknowledge this, whereas many sola Scriptura Protestants don’t — which is just a falsehood grounded in stubbornness. On this I think Bob is right. What I think he missed is that our “T”radition contains a Deposit of Faith that includes truths which, while compatible with Scripture, are not sourced in Scripture. As I suspect you were suggesting, the fundamental flaw of sola Sciptura does not lie in its inadequacies of exegesis, but in the error that all theological truths are contained in Scripture.
Correct Mike.
Not all theological truth is found in scripture. I could easily ask my infamous 4 questions to prove that easily.
Using Scripture alone, please tell me:
1) Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27?
2) Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3) Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4) Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?
The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly.
Puzzled,
I’m a bit “puzzled” myself; I’ve seen this reference to TULIP a few times lately, but I’m unfamiliar with the term. It looks like an acronym, but I haven’t been able to guess what it stands for. Can you (or anyone else) enlighten me? Thanks much.
Tulip:
http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html
It is a man-made tradition, based on John Calvin’s interpretation of scripture (his tradition)
Jimmy has a great article on it.
He summarized it as follows:
The debate is centered on the well-known formula TULIP. Each letter of this acronym stands for a different doctrine held by classical Calvinists [There are some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians or “four-point Calvinists,” who hold all of TULIP except for ” L “] but rejected by Arminians. The doctrines are:
Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace, and
Perseverance of the saints.
A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP By JAMES AKIN
Welcome Dr. Beckwith! You should become some type of strategist for the Catholic Church. Your knowledge of ethical issues would probably make a huge impact. God bless you.
About the ETS statement, I agree with Jimmy that as written it seems OK technically (I’m no expert). But given the intent I think it’s prone to multiple interpretations that are informed by ones own tradition and background, sounds familiar doesn’t it? 🙂
Just take the seemingly harmless term “Bible”. Protestants exclude books we Catholics include. It’s the same word, but not the same thing.
What is the ETS? If it’s so hostile to Catholics, why would a Catholic want to be a member?
What is the ETS? If it’s so hostile to Catholics, why would a Catholic want to be a member?
I think its more the novelty that they specifically worded their statement of faith in the way they did “Because [they] didn’t want any Roman Catholics in the group,” yet that statement alone doesn’t exclude any Catholics from membership.
How ire(o)nic of them.
Perhaps “ir[e|o]nic” would be better.
But given the intent I think it’s prone to multiple interpretations that are informed by ones own tradition and background, sounds familiar doesn’t it? 🙂
I think this is part of the reason why the statement hasn’t done it’s job. The ETS includes so many denominations that they can’t make it more specific without excluding some of their own along with the Catholics.
Welcome home, mr.Beckwith. I don´t konw what to say more. I´ll just keep you in my prayers.
Be blessed,
lk
Considering Jimmy’s statement:
“The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written (as opposed to the Word of God Incarnate, the word of God in nature, or the word of God handed on through the Church in parallel to Scripture).”
and John’s response to Jimmy’s article:
“I don’t follow Jimmy’s reasoning. The statement that the Bible alone is the “Word of God written and is therefore innerant” would exclude magisterial statements of the Catholic Church. The logical conclusion is that magisterial teachings, including teachings from Church tradition, are not innerant. This contradicts a Catholic understanding of divine revelation.
and bold off’s response to John:
“Non sequitur. The sentences reads: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” From this it may be understood that [a] only the Bible is the word of God written (this is true) and that [b] only the Bible is therefore inerrant (i.e., inerrant because the word of God written). Grammatically and logically it does not follow that the Bible alone is inerrant — only that nothing else is inerrant due to being the word of God written.”
Bold Off – is it your suggestion that the magisterial statements of the Catholic Church are not the word of God written? Weren’t many of these magisterial statements derived from the same method the various of the Bible were? Certainly you learned of these magesterial statements from some written source, and not from some magical unwritten communication chain dating back perhaps several hundred years. Then, aren’t these magisterial statements, recorded and appearing in written form, and derived from the same methods as the canon, also inerrant? Finally then, aren’t these written, inerrant magisterial statements extra biblical?
I think this is the point that the other John is trying to make. Rather than becoming defensive and adversarial toward the other John or myself, please kindly explain the flaws in what I perceive to be John’s and my logic.
stated another way, if both the bible and magisterial statements are written and inerrant, then how can Jimmy’s aforementioned statement pass muster?
Thank you and peace,
MNJohn
Thanks, Esau and BobCatholic, for the TULIP links. Leave it to Jimmy to have answered that question already (and long ago – I’ll have to start reading deeper into the This Rock archives).
Once again:
The books of the Bible were written under divine inspiration and have God as their Author. They represent active divine revelation.
The age of divine revelation is now closed. No new public revelation, no new inspiration or divine Authorship, no new word of God, is being given.
Magisterial statements of whatever gravity do not constitute divine revelation (though they attest it), are not written under divine inspiration (though they are written under divine protection), do not have God as their Author (though they may be said to have God as their Editor), are not the word of God (though they attest it).
Hope that helps.
:is it your suggestion that the magisterial statements of the Catholic Church are not the word of God written?:
I don’t think it’s a suggestion. It’s obviously true that the Catholic Church does not teach that the magisterial statements are the Word of God. Rather, they _contain_ the Word of God and witness to it. In other words, the Catholic understanding of magisterial documents is like _some_ Protestant views of Scripture, but not like the view of Scripture maintained by the ETS.
: Weren’t many of these magisterial statements derived from the same method the various of the Bible were?:
I’m not sure what that means or how it is relevant.
: Certainly you learned of these magesterial statements from some written source, and not from some magical unwritten communication chain dating back perhaps several hundred years.:
Some of the early statements might rely on traditions that had not previously been written, but generally speaking that’s true. How is it relevant? That is in fact the _opposite_ of the way Scripture originated. Scripture (NT Scripture at least) originated when the Apostles or their disciples committed the Gospel (previously proclaimed orally) to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Later magisterial documents draw both on Scripture and on the continuing proclamation and interpretation of the Gospel by the Church. They are derivative.
: Then, aren’t these magisterial statements, recorded and appearing in written form, and derived from the same methods as the canon, also inerrant?:
I do not believe that the Catholic Church teaches that magisterial documents are intrinsically inerrant by virtue of being magisterial documents. They are inerrant when they solemnly teach dogma. Scripture, however, cannot err (with regard to the purpose for which it was inspired) because it is inspired by God. It is not simply protected from error.
Edwin
OT:
Tarhiel – Morrowind much?
I see here that the word “inerrant” is being applied by both Catholics and Protestants to Catholic magisterial documents. That’s the wrong word. “Inerrancy” in Catholicism applies only to the Bible. The word you guys want is “infallible,” not “inerrant.”
Welcome to the Church Dr. Beckwith and family. I’ve never been president of an evangelical group (or any other group, actually), but, as a convert to the Church with rabidly anti-Catholic relatives and as a man responsible to God for guiding a family, I have empathy for you.
***
I seem to remember reading something that said that the truths proclaimed in magisterial documents are assured but that the actual wording is subject to revision if such revision were needed in order to clarify the intent of a passage. Anyone know if I’m remembering correctly?
I appreciate the intended clarification, Jordan, but I’m unsure how helpful this is.
On its face, “infallibility” seems to mean the quality of being incapable of erring, while “inerrancy” seems to mean the quality of not being erroneous, or perhaps, to stretch the point, the quality of being certainly and definitively without error.
It would thus seem to be teaching authorities — not documents or teachings per se — that might most usefully be described as “fallible” or “infallible” (or as exercising a charism of infallibility [or not], etc).
By contrast, it would seem that documents might be described as fallibly or infallibly written, or that teachings as fallibly or infallibly set forth; but the actual documents and teachings themselves are neither “fallible” nor “infallible,” only “errant” or “inerrant.”
Side note: If we use “inerrant” to refer to documents that are certainly and definitively without error (as opposed to documents of whatever weight that simply contain no errors in fact), it seems to me that documents of lesser weight will need a different word besides “errant,” which seems to imply actual errors. Many non-infallibly written magisterial documents may be completely without error; heck, even Jimmy (or by a freak chance even James White!) might write a blog post that contains no errors. Perhaps a term like “non-inerrant” might cover such cases? Or perhaps we might simply stick to saying that the document was not infallibly written, or that its teaching is not infallibly proposed?
Thus, we would say that both scripture and magisterial documents of the greatest weight are inerrant, whereas the Magisterium is infallible, or exercises a gift of infallibility, when it teaches under certain conditions. Other documents may be “non-inerrant,” if written and promulgated in a non-infallible fashion.
Does that make any sense? Any other comments or suggestions?
Too many posts!
I will just offer up my congratulations and ask for everyone’s prayers for a dying coworker.
Peace.
My tendency is to understand infallible = “incapable by nature of being wrong” and inerrant = just plain “isn’t wrong.” This would obviously make infallibility a subcategory of inerrancy. I would consider both to be appropriate descriptors of either a single statement or a source of authority.
So a blog post with mistakes on it would be in error and fallible. One without any mistakes would be inerrant, but fallible. If the blogger chose such a narrow topic about which he knew so much that he never made any mistakes, then as a blogger he would be inerrant but fallible, at least as to that topic. If the Holy Father were to start a “blog ex cathedra” (which would be incredibly cool), then both he as a blogger and his blog posts woudl be both infallible and inerrant as to matters of faith and morals.
FWIW, I would add another category on top of this: “inspired,” for Scripture. This would refer to things that God affirmatively communicated to the writer, rather than simply protected from error (as with infallibility) or permitted to be without error (as with inerrancy). So infallibility itself is a subcategory of inspired.
You could argue that there should be other categories. For instance:
* The actual words of God, in Scripture or elsewhere in general revelation.
* The words of God in private revelations
* The words of people, in scripture or elsewhere in general revelation, speaking actual words that came directly from God
* The words of angels or saints in heaven, in scripture or elsewhere in general revelation
* The words of angels or saints in private revelations.
All of these, I think, are more than “inerrant” as I just defined it. Some of them are also more than “infallible” and even “inspired;” others just seem incommensurate with those.
Actually, regardless of whether or not you accept my terminology, such a project of creating a hierarchy of Catholic auhorities, and clearly explaining their logical relationships to each other, could probably be really helpful to people whose idolatry radars are immediately set off by “all this stuff” that Catholics believe is “from God.”
On another note, very sadly, a Catholic-convert of many years and of great reputation, Bill Cork, has just “re-converted” to Seventh Day Adventism.
When the Church speaks of inerrancy of Scripture, it means not a single error is taught anywhere in Scripture. But the Church has never claimed inerrancy of its magisterial documents. For example, in ex cathedra definitions, it is only the definition itself that is graced with infallibility, not the entire document in which the definition is made. The theological arguments and scripture interpretations that are deployed to support the definition may sometimes be in error, but the definition itself is infallible. The bull Unam Sanctam, not only defines Extra Ecclesiam Non Salus, but also teaches the doctrine of the Two Swords. Only the definition in Unam Sanctam is infallible, but the doctrine of the Two Swords is fallible and therefore possibly in error (though quite possibly true).
But even if every single sentence of every single magisterial document were infallible, since the Church herself never says her documents are inerrant but reserves that word for Holy Scripture, it is necessary that we all refrain from using “inerrant” for documents of the magisterium.
One of the reasons Catholics operate with interpretive tradition “on the table” (openly admitting its necessity and use) and Protestants do not boils down to fundamental worldviews.
Catholicism deals in realities and Protestantism in symbolisms.
For example, Catholics have a concrete understanding of the answer to the question: what is the Church? Protestants are ecclessiastically agnostic. Whether “the Church” includes or excludes Catholics, non-Evangelicals, Lutherans, Episcopalians, agnostics, Mormons, etc is a matter that differs not only from community to community but even to the individuals comprising these communities. Other points of contention would include the necessity of the Church for salvation, whether it was established by Christ, matters of liturgy, the degree and breadth of authority, whether a faith needs apostolic tradition to be considered valid, etc.
Rather than deal with the disturbing fog of this confusion, Protestantism simply resigns itself to the belief that the concretes cannot be known. Sometimes this is swallowed up in symbolic language, and still at other times it is left to the eternal and egalitarian love of God. Both are agnostic in character.
It will be noted that the bulk of these agnosticisms are employed in matters directly concerning “the Church” or her direct extensions — her teachings. What remains concrete for Protestants is the Bible and nothing else. Faith, its definition and efficacy must also belong to that amorphous cloud of Protestant confusion.
Thus the Protestant bemoans the Catholic’s lack of understanding of Scripture while the Catholic bemoans the Protestant’s lack of understanding of the Church.
While modern Catholic apologists have made much progress in defending the faith (as taught by the Church) in purely Biblical terms, the arguments fall on deaf ears for Protestants whose symbolic understanding of the Church renders ecclesial apologetics immaterial.
Protestant apologists, on the other hand, are faced with the much more daunting task of arguing a biblical interpretation tradition that is not biblical and preaching a historical church that is not historical.
The result is a war of attrition — where one side makes slow but certain progress and the other can only hope to shore up the walls with deeper and deeper animosity.
Smoky Mountain,
You asked what the ETS is. The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics are Christian. People like James White systematically try to go against that teaching. It seems that white would love it if Catholics had nothing to do the ETS. That explains (partially at least) why a person like white wouldn’t want a Catholic to have much to do with ETS. The ETS has an abundance of true views that the Catholics can and should hold.
In Him,
Kyl
Smoky Mountain,
I want to add that I’m Catholic. Generally speaking, White is lacking wisdom. If white put more energy into refuting secularism, etc., he would be doing a lot more for Christ. (sadly) He puts a lot of energy into trying to refute Catholicism.
The “Word of God written” is an extremely broad term. The Bible is the ‘Word of God written’.. but moreover it’s given the authoritative approval of the Church. It is “canonized”.
Doc Beckwith:
Welcome home!
Mr. Akin,
I just posted on this also. However, it would be helpful if we had some statement from Mr. Beckwith (or something of the sort) by which to verify this story. Has anything like this been posted?
Thanks!
Alex
Dear Roman Catholic.
Either the Bible alone is the word of God or it is just one among a mulititude of other resources made available.
You numbskulls are about as whacked out as the Mormons who also pay lip service to the Bible. “We believe the Bible is the word of God” says the Roman Catholic. But, when push comes to shove, just like the Mormons, the Prophet/Popie has the final say.
Please dont insult our intelligence with this idea you have respect for the Scripture as the final say. The Popie has the final say, thus the Scriptures bow to his authority and not the reverse.
The only reason you have anything to do with the Bible is because it is a refence point to jesus in attempts to validate to the world you are Christians. You are no more saved then hoppytoads! Repent of your idolatry, your mess of a Mass etc. Turn to Messiah’s work alone! Moshe
The only reason we have a Bible is that the Pope and bishops of the Catholic Church, in the Fourth Century, authoritatively determined which books were Divinely inspired and which were not. If you don’t believe that, tell us on what authority you believe that the books of the Bible were Divinely inspired and other books were not.
Moshe, why should anyone believe your decisions when it comes to the deposit of faith rather than look to the successor of St. Peter? It seems like the Pope has a far better claim to Christ-bestowed authority than you.
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’” (Matt. 16:18-19).
Mt 18:17 – if he refuses to listen even to the Church…
http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
“Thus the Protestant bemoans the Catholic’s lack of understanding of Scripture while the Catholic bemoans the Protestant’s lack of understanding of the Church.”
It is incumbent upon you “StubbleSpark”- to show which of the two views above, (the Catholics lack of understanding of Scripture, or the Protestant’s lack of understanding the Church) has any negative effect on ones Soteriological outcome!.
If you say the Protestant’s lack of understanding of the Church– then Rome , and Rome alone saves you regardless of any hermeneutics of Scripture, leaving you with having to explain how is it that Scripture is being sub-servient to Rome.
If you say the Protestant’s lack of understanding of the Church– then Rome , and Rome alone saves you regardless of any hermeneutics of Scripture
I don’t think StubbleSpark was saying that Rome alone saves regardless of any hermeneutics of scripture. Rome itself doesn’t even say this.
Nor do I think think that your conclusion necessarily follows from StubbleSpark’s statement that Protestants don’t fully understand the Church because of their symbolic view of it.
Amazing how these trolls think they know what Catholics believe better than Catholics themselves, and refuse to hear anything that might conflict with their simple minded preconceptions.
erick, as usual, you propose a false “either/or” choice between the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church. They both receive their authority from Christ Himself. Where one is, the other is… always.
No Catholic believes they are “saved by Rome” (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean), but I know that won’t stop you from continuing to spew your ignorant prejudice.
I have to say, though, that Moshe makes you seem almost reasonable by comparison.
I haven’t read all the posts, but have to laugh at Moshe’s “You numbskulls are about as whacked out…”
His interpersonal skills are just as poor as his comprehension of Catholicism.
Tim, cross-posted with your well said post.
It is clear that the ETS was intended to be a Protestant Evangelical organization, but as a Protestant, I have to be honest. The ETS lost any relevance for me once they started letting Open Theists stay. If they can’t boot the Open Theists out then they won’t be able to boot Beckwith out, and this is simply one more reason view the ETS as a sham. They should consider a name change to something like The Society for Theology of Viewpoints Which May Or May Not Be Evangelical.
This is a fascinating and heartening thread. Thanks for all the thoughtful and charitable posts. I will keep Moshe in my prayers.
Roman Catholics love to boast that they preserved the Scriptures. Why? If they are not the word of God and the FINAL say in matters concerning morals and doctrine, why preserve them?
I see you have a higher regard for Rome and her devilish doctrines then the Scriptures. Why be hypocrites? Let go of this false sentiment for the Scriptures. Dont be hypocrites like the Mormons!
Secondly, just a note for misinformed Romanists. Christianity is a sect of Judaism. Christianity is a sect of Judaism. Got that? Good!
Not religious Judaism, but biblical judaism. Salvation is from the Jews! You Gentiles do not know what you worship because you are so driven by rome and mary and her multiple heresies that you forget what it is that has life.
Messiah said, It Is Finished. Done! Expiation, Propitiation…DONE! Instead, you have him coming down from heaven every four minutes to become a happy meal in what you call a mass. I prefer to call it a mess.
Repent of your idolatry and turn to the work of the Messiah. He lived the life we cannot live and died the death we deserved.
Deo gratias! Welcome home!
How tenderly the Shepherd calls His sheep into His fold. Congratulations and welcome home, Dr. Beckwith. Anti-Catholic detractors will not make it easy for you, but rest assured you are surrounded by prayer.
Kathy
I think someone’s been up all night smoking rolled up Chick tracts.
“Instead, you have him coming down from heaven every four minutes to become a happy meal in what you call a mass”.
Moshe, the tone of your posts makes me that much more grateful to be a true follower of the Christ in His Catholic Church (“Who hears you hears me”).
In Him “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free man”. Christianity – the True Faith – belongs to no race or nation, but is over all.
The fruit of the Spirit is Love, Joy Peace, etc… bitterness, envy, jealousy are fruits of a different vine, one destined to perish in flames.
Roman Catholics love to boast that they preserved the Scriptures. Why? If they are not the word of God and the FINAL say in matters concerning morals and doctrine, why preserve them?
Do you have the Old Testament in your Bible? Why bother? It, also, was not the FINAL say.
You numbskulls
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,
and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something,
so that no human being might boast before God.
Moshe, why would I want to believe like you when in a few abrasive sentences you’ve convinced me that I wouldn’t even want to live next door to you?
If I were at a party, and you came into the room the way you came into this combox, with both barrels blazing, I would get up and leave. Or I would shoot you down so fast it would make your head spin, but in any case I would hardly be inspired to try to look at the world the way you do.
Moshe is what IP banning was made for.
Moshe,
The Church was here before her leaders (peterr and th apostles) wrote anything on paper. Jesus commanded them to ‘teach all nations to observe all’ he had commanded them. Nothing about the written word there. The Church confirmed the canon of scriptures, and uses the authority from Christ to interpret it. You believe in the infallible Word but not in an infallible interpreter. Without one infallible interpretation, everyone would (and many do) disagree with each other on the fundamentals of Christ’s teaches. You would have chaos.
BTW, SDG, I’m really glad you liked Spidy 3. I’ve been looking forward to seeing it.
I didn’t expect Moshe to answer my question.
“By this will all men know that you are My disciples: by your love for one another.” John (13:35 I think).
Moshe’s posts definitly do not let all men know that he is one of His disciples.
From James White’s blog entry:
Perhaps the reason that James is not finding numerous stories of conversion to Christ amongst the accounts of “swimming the Tiber” that he has been reading is because those who swim the Tiber are already Christians. The phrase just isn’t used by those who are converts to the Catholic Faith from Judaism, Islam, atheism, and various forms of animism and paganism.
That’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of stories of those who DO become Catholics from those ranks… and in their stories you DO find much to say about conversion to Christ.
But one of the themes found often in the “swimming the Tiber” category is that of obedience to Christ. A prime example of this is found in the Hahns’ journeys. And this compliance with the will of God, this obedience **IS** a conversion, a metanoia.
Does James White require it be said in his language? Or does he just want the fact of the conversion? A rose by any other name would be a sweet…
“No Catholic believes they are “saved by Rome” (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean)”-.
Amazing how I must have hit a nerve with tim!.
Can you then say that soteriological stance with God can be attained with Scripture alone without Rome?—
After all they are the same (as you so foolishly argue)!…
If your answer is no— then maybe now you know what the “heck” I’m talking about.
Incidently, your name calling-(troll etc.)- sure does not sound like the “fruits” of Love, Peace and Joy you mentioned above!— time to check which “vine” you’re on!.
“Amazing how I must have hit a nerve with tim!”
Delusional.
FWIW, I’ve always said that it was precisely following Jesus that led me out of Calvinism to Catholicism. It was Calvinists that taught me to love Jesus and to love scripture, and then it was that very love of Jesus and that very love of scripture that made me a Catholic.
In the Catholic Church, I have found the fullness of what I always loved and believed as a Protestant. Rather than losing or rejecting anything positive, I have gained what I was missing. It was love of Jesus that made me long to receive him body and soul in the Eucharist. It was love of God’s word that made me long to see it aright together with the mind of the Church, which is the fulness of him who fills all in all.
And I don’t think my story is as exceptional as James White feigns. For instance, I notice that Peter Kreeft, my fellow ex-Dutch Reformed, writes in a very similar spirit in his conversion story:
Word.
Erick, we believe we are saved by Jesus. Not by scripture, not by Rome. Do you believe that the Bible saves you?
Whether Jesus our Savior requires that we follow his teachings as set forth (as Protestants believe) in scripture alone, or as set forth (as Catholics believe) in God’s word in both sacred scripture and sacred tradition as authentically interpreted by the Church, is another question.
“…is another question.”-
That is precisely what the question is!.
I have not resorted to name calling –or angry rhetoric such as “Moshe”—as a point in fact I never do—-Delusional?— maybe , yet there remains some faint light in what “sdg” says when he states”…Erick, we believe we are saved by Jesus. Not by scripture”–and I say “faint” because then he (she?) nust explain many passages such as John 8;51.!.
On a related note… Welcome home Dr. Beckwith. It’s good to have you back.
It is with curiosity that I followed up on Dr. Beckwith’s return to the Catholic Church. I was not at all familiar with his works, but I have always been interested in conversion stories of Protestants to Catholicism. I seriously and deeply thought of converting out of the Roman Catholic Church several years back, but a Protestant convert to Catholicism, thankfully, led me to the Coming Home website and led me to known Catholic Apologists such as Dr. Scott Hahn. And reading apologists’ (such as Jimmy Akin) writing has led me to having a greater appreciation for my Catholic faith.
While it was with happiness that I received the news of Dr. Beckwith’s return to the Church, it is with sadness that I read the comments that people (on both sides – Protestant and Catholics) left on his website. Many posts have been uncharitable. And while I understand the frustration and disappointment others might have felt with Dr. Beckwith’s return to the Catholic Church, I believe that that is no reason to be uncharitable to one another.
We are called to be perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect. And God loves us all, whether we are sinners or saints. And He calls us to do the same, to each person – whether they are sinners or saints; whether we agree with them or disagree with them.
I understand that it is very easy to get so caught up in taking sides (either Protestant or RC), and it is therefore very easy to be uncharitable. But if I may ask, to all those who post comments, whether you are Protestant or Catholic, to please regard each one with utmost love and respect as our Lord would want us to do.
“This I command you: love one another.” (John 15:17)
“Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with GENTLENESS and REVERENCE” (1 Peter 3:15-16)
In Christ,
Kate
erick, I never said that the Church and the Bible are the same, those are your words. I said they both have their authority from Christ. Apparently that is a distinction you are not able to grasp, which is a pity, because it leaves us with nothing to discuss.
You claim to believe the Bible, why don’t you believe what it says about the authority of the Church?
Matthew 16:18-19
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 18:17
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Ephesians 3:10
“His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms…”
1 Timothy 3:15
“…if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
So, the Bible, which you claim to believe, teaches that “…now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known”.
God chose to make His wisdom known through the Church… that’s scripture!
Do any of you know where Francis Beckwith and Roger Beckwith (a Reformed theologian) are related in any way?
jj
Yes, it is, and in order to discuss that question fruitfully, it is helpful not to muddy the waters with what is not the question, such as straw-man formulas like whether “Rome alone saves,” which no one believes.
The question is not whether “Rome saves,” any more than it is whether “scripture saves.”
Rather, as I said, it is whether Jesus our Savior requires that we follow his teachings as set forth (as Protestants believe) in scripture alone, or as set forth (as Catholics believe) in God’s word in both sacred scripture and sacred tradition as authentically interpreted by the Church.
Moshe’s posts definitly do not let all men know that he is one of His disciples.
Let us remember that trying to warn someone of a danger, even abrasively, is a sign of love. He may mean well.
And even if the danger is illusionary, as long as he believes it.
Trackback Pontifications
SDG,
When Ratziger made the statements I referenced embracing higher-critical views he was, according to the Vatican’s bio, “Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and of the International Theological Commission.” I assume he knew better than even you what the various church documents on the Bible mean and didn’t feel his liberal views contradicted them.
Even you just wrote: “or as set forth (as Catholics believe) in God’s word in both sacred scripture and sacred tradition as authentically interpreted by the Church.” Where is the church’s tradition “authentically interpreted”? Generally in written documents. So at least some written statements of the church are as binding on Catholics as Scripture.
I see that Beckwith has, appropriately, resigned as head of the ETS.
Resigned already? He didn’t even last six months.
Roma Invicta!
Fr. K:
I enjoyed the “Trackback Pontifications” link very much. Thanks!
In other words, Jeb, it seems you can’t back up your statement about the “teachings” of the PBC regarding the “current Catholic view of scripture” from any particular teaching documents. Not that you’re going to admit that. You just feel free to throw out stuff like that and then change the subject to the views of particular theologians and churchmen if anyone calls you on it.
sdg-.
“such as straw-man formulas like whether ‘Rome alone saves,’ which no one believes.”—
Incredible explample of circular reasoning—when coupled with the conclusion-“…as authentically interpreted by the Church.”
Which “church” ?– If Rome , then suddenly the “straw-man formula” doesn’t seem so “straw-man”- does it?.
The ultimate conclusion to your argument is circular in nature!—You deny that “Rome alone saves”–yet even the Scriptures must submit to Rome’s authority not only in interpretation—but as to extent as well!.
Where does that leave you?— with Rome !- after all if it was not for Rome- we would not have God’s Word!!.
Erick:
I need you to answer the question I asked in my first response to you: Do you believe that Jesus saves, or that “the Bible alone saves”?
Jeb:
Once again, I have to observe that in all our interactions, I have never, so far as I recall, seen you admit an error. More than once you have been caught in a blatant misstatement of fact, yet you have never (again, AFAICR) been willing to offer a simple, straightforward “I was wrong to say X.”
For example, there was the time you claimed that I was “incorrect” to say that Spong did not claim to believe in the Trinity, and went on to imply that Spong as an example of those who “claim to support the Trinity.” Even though your own source proved that I was right and you were wrong (just as I said, Spong explicitly denies believing in the Trinity, even though he still wants to call himself a “trinitarian” in some sense that does not support your claim that he does believe in the Trinity), you refused to admit your error. (We revisited the issue here, where you continued your irrational nonadmission of error policy.)
Then there was your string of falsehoods and distortions in the Cardinal Dulles thread, ranging from “The US Bishops came up with a document that puts Judaism at the same level as Christianity — or higher” to “I understand it’s not an official document of the US Bishops — as a whole — but it was issued by the Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs — and it does put Judaism and Christianity on the same level” to “Well, the document does say that Judaism is just as good for Jews as Christianity” to “Even Karl Keating views it as a document of the bishops (or one of their subgroups)” (paraphrases mine).
Now, here we are again.
First in this thread you made claims regarding “the current Catholic view of Scripture as taught by the Pontifical Biblical Commission,” yet you have neither documented these claims from actual teaching documents of the PBC, nor withdrawn your undocumented claims.
Then you claimed that “The Catholic church does claim that certain written documents (such as those that proclaimed the assumption of the BVM and the immaculate conception) are inerrant & the word of God.” This is dead wrong, and has been shown to be dead wrong, on two grounds. First, even the documents you refer to are not inerrant in toto (only the infallible definitions themselves are inerrant; the documents themselves contain additional non-infallibly proposed content that might be in error). But secondly and crucially, the Church teaches (even if you don’t) that sacred scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is divinely inspired and revealed, and has God as its author, and not even infallible church pronouncements are not equal to that.
But so far you show no sign of admitting error on either of those fronts, either. Anyone who reads Jimmy’s blog is capable of seeing the pattern. You aren’t doing your theological persuasion any favors with your behavior, Jeb.
What is the big deal, anyway? I probably have at least as big an ego problem as you do, and I can admit when I’ve made a mistake (as I’ve done on this blog). It would make you seem more like a human being and less like the “self-dubbed Knights Templar” that Lewis described so aptly in that Four Loves quotation I cited in one of the posts linked above.
The title should be “Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Roman Catholic Church”
I need you to answer the question I asked in my first response to you
Who do you need?
“The title should be “Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Roman Catholic Church””
Why qualify it with “Roman”?
No, he is in full communion with Byzantine Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, et al.
We aren’t Romans, we are Catholic.
“Do any of you know where Francis Beckwith and Roger Beckwith (a Reformed theologian) are related in any way?”
I know. There is no relation.
Brothers in Christ? Family of Adam & Eve? Neighbors? Friends?
Dr. Beckwith, welcome home!
SDG,
Here is a document from the PBC which teaches a liberal view of the Bible:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
For example:
“In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message.”
In other words, Jesus said A & B, but the evangelists turned it into C & D.
You might also want to read the PBC’s 2001 statement “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures” for more examples of liberal dating and composition of the biblical books.
sdg-
God chose to reveal Himself through Special Revelation as well as Natural Revelation.
However it is through Special Revelation (written form) that He reveals Himself in a Soteriological way.
You can look at the stars and come to a knowledge about a creator (Natural Revelation)- but this would not be sufficient to come to a knowledge about the Gospel.
Therefore—Jesus saves, as revealed in Special Revelation.
Jesus is the incarnate Word–(Jn-I).
Because Francis Beckwith is one of the greatest living apologists/ethicists, Christianity is very lucky to have him. Christians must intensely study his work on the pro-life topic, etc. Dr. Beckwith has literally written the best books on the abortion topic. In addition, we must make study groups and any other effective ways of teaching the information we have learned from his books, etc., on the topic. Our Lord is a God of reason as well as of revelation: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/books.html Making Abortion Unthinkable is another culture transforming resource:https://secure2.convio.net/str/site/Ecommerce/1688494042?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=3161&store_id=1161 (it is a well-reasoned seminar with all you need to train a group in the art of pro-life persuasion). We (pro-lifers) have the ability to stop the abortion holocaust. This link has graphic visuals of abortion that are used for education: http://www.jfaweb.org/ It is the Justice for All. This is an educational video with Dr. Beckwith: http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1126,filter.all,type.upcoming/event_detail.asp On a different topic: Leading apologists, for example, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, Gary Habermas, Scott Rae, and Alvin Plantinga don’t put very much energy into criticizing Catholicism (they refute humanism a lot). Because the above apologists put a lot of their energy into refuting humanism, the said apologists have given a great example for those that incorrectly think that Catholicism is problematic.
Jeb,
Thanks for finally providing a source. Now, let’s see if your source supports your claims — or refutes them.
Remember, the original question was whether what you called “the current Catholic view of scripture” would preclude a Catholic signing a Protestant statement of faith affirming that the Bible is “inerrant in its autographs.”
So, what does your source have to say about Protestant belief in inerrancy? Here’s the money quote:
Dang. A stronger endorsement of the validity of a Catholic accepting a Protestant statement of faith on inerrancy is hard to imagine. Not only does your source not deny the inerrancy of scripture — not only does it explicitly affirm inerrancy — it actually goes one step further and explicitly says in so many words that the Fundamentalist affirmation of biblical inerrancy is right.
I mean, it all but comes right out and says in so many words “Catholics and Fundamentalists agree on the fact of biblical inerrancy such that a Catholic could legitimately sign a Fundamentalist statement of faith affirming biblical inerrancy.” While the document goes on to take issue the Fundamentalist application of inerrancy, the Fundamentalist stance on the fact of inerrancy itself is strongly affirmed… and, given the brevity of the ETS statement of faith, that’s enough.
Once again, Jeb, your own source proves you wrong. And once again, you won’t admit it. (The first statement is a fact, the second a prediction. You can’t prove me wrong on the first point, but I’d love to be proved wrong on the second.)
“Here is a document from the PBC which teaches a liberal view of the Bible:”
Yes, yes, and as I’m sure you’ve been told many times before, since 1971 the documents of the PBC have carried absolutely no magisterial weight whatsoever. The PBC is only an advisory body of Bible scholars that assists the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Their documents reflect the points of view of the PBC members, but do not necessarily teach the faith of the Church.
Of course, SDG’s reply was much more to the point than mine was — which was to say that, even if a PBC document questioned the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (there is no such document, but even if), it wouldn’t show what the faith of the Church is on that matter. For that, you have to go to formal decrees of Church Councils and Popes, not study papers of advisory commissions of Catholic scholars.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders
Apostolicae Curae
Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII
And we, not disregarding such desires and opinions, above all, obeying the dictates of apostolic charity, have considered that nothing should be left untried that might in any way tend to preserve souls from injury or procure their advantage. It has, therefore, pleased Us to graciously permit the cause to be reexamined, so that, through the extreme care taken in the new examination, all doubt, or even shadow of doubt, should be removed for the future.
But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
But then we have JPII who in the name of Ecumenism disregarded everything Leo XIII and popes and martyrs taught and died for, kissed the ring of the Archbishop Rowan in 2003, in 1980 allowed their married ministers into the Catholic church.
So what exactly does “in communion” with the church mean anymore?
Welcoming Beckwith in probably just means he wants to join the church like Scott Hahn because their is a a bigger audience now to buy his books and make him rich
John,
Assuming that Pope John Paul II kissing Archbishop Rowan’s ring and Anglicans and Protestants converting to Catholicism all contradict Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical (I don’t believe that they do, but I’ll try to follow your reasoning) – How then, do you propose that converts and reverts should become Catholic?
John, the measure you give will be the measure you get back.
‘The logical conclusion is that magisterial teachings, including teachings from Church tradition, are not innerant.’
That is exactly correct. Why anyone would believe people in pointy hats have some insight into God that you or I couldn’t have is a bizarre facet of humanity.
‘The ultimate conclusion to your argument is circular in nature!—You deny that “Rome alone saves”–yet even the Scriptures must submit to Rome’s authority not only in interpretation—but as to extent as well!.
Where does that leave you?— with Rome !- after all if it was not for Rome- we would not have God’s Word!!.’
The above is the dumbest paragraph I’ve seen written on the internet in some time. The bible doesn’t submit to Rome. The bible would exist without Rome. All you have to do is read it yourself.
Thank you, Erick. Now, all you need to do is wrap your head around the following:
1. Catholics and Protestants agree on everything you just wrote in your last post (with one exception: We would not equate “special revelation” with “written form,” since special revelation also includes, e.g., the spoken words of Jesus and the prophets, and above all Jesus himself, the Word of God).
2. Just as Protestants believe that salvation in Christ is revealed in the Bible alone, Catholics believe that salvation in Christ is revealed in both sacred scripture and sacred tradition as authentically interpreted by the Magisterium.
3. Just as Protestants believe that Jesus alone saves, not the Bible, Catholics believe that Jesus alone saves, not “Rome.”
Capisce?
‘Catholics believe that salvation in Christ is revealed in both sacred scripture and sacred tradition as authentically interpreted by the Magisterium.’
Thats the rub, no reasonable person would/could actually believe that their is an ‘authentic’ interpretation. It’s just men reading a book, the same as other men reading a book. Nothing magical. Protestant scholarship has been extremely valuable in proofing many biblical ideas that otherwise would have been closed off.
There is no magisterum. It’s just men. Period.
The tune of this debate seems to be:
Rome, by claiming an infallible Magisterium, says the scriptures must submit to it’s authority. Therefore Rome is wrong.
In which case I say:
Christians, by claiming an inspired an inerrant Bible, say God must submit to the scriptures. Therefore Christianity is wrong.
Both of these statements are obviously wrong. The cause of Truth is God, the rest is just the trickle-down effect. Christians believe the the Bible is inerrant because its inspired by the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe the previous sentence and also that the Magisterium is infallible because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Bible reveals the Truth of God more clearly, and Catholics believe the Magisterium reveals the Truth of the Bible more clearly. But no one imposes anything up the line.
‘the Magisterium is infallible because it is guided by the Holy Spirit.’
Yeah, one can believe anything I guess. That one is a whopper.
YZ:
Here is your skeptical rhetoric back at you, from a more whole-hog point of view:
Cheers.
Thats not rhetoric it’s reality. And your entire paragraph is correct. It’s not rhetoric.
One can have faith in anything thats the point. The primary difference is I can read a book and have faith in it’s precepts. But to see obviously flawed men who are no different than you or I and think they had some divine insight not given to you or I is an additional and unnecessary step.
One should be skeptical it is an exceedingly good quality as opposed to being credulous.
YZ,
If the Holy Spirit guides each person in their interpretation of Scripture, how can 10 people read the Bible and come up with 10 different interpretations? Whose interpretation is correct? If they’re all guided by the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t each interpretation be correct? If only one interpretation is correct, how are we supposed to know who was really guided by the Holy Spirit and who wasn’t?
YZ:
Do you believe that the books that make up the Bible, and only those books, are Divinely inspired? If so, why?
Weren’t the human authors of scripture obviously flawed men no different from you or I? Why is believing that they had some divine insight not given to you or I any less an “unnecessary step?”
What reason do you have for putting your faith in one book over another, or in any book at all?
I do tend to be a skeptical person. That’s why I questioned sola scriptura and ultimately questioned my way into the Catholic Church, the only place I found answers for my questions.
/If the Holy Spirit guides each person in their interpretation of Scripture, how can 10 people read the Bible and come up with 10 different interpretations? Whose interpretation is correct?/
maybe none- your making an assumption.
/If they’re all guided by the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t each interpretation be correct?/
You would think so.
/If only one interpretation is correct, how are we supposed to know who was really guided by the Holy Spirit and who wasn’t?/
Exactly, I don’t think your method provides an answer either. What you have done is set up a false dicotomy, if I answer no you’ll say see you need magisterum. But in reality they are as likely to be just as wrong and are in several places but it won’t matter as you must have faith in them. Sheep.
/Do you believe that the books that make up the Bible, and only those books, are Divinely inspired? If so, why?/
beside the point entirely.
/What reason do you have for putting your faith in one book over another, or in any book at all?/
Exactly. None that is remotely logical. I may do it as an illogical non rational person but there is no real reason for it.
/That’s why I questioned sola scriptura and ultimately questioned my way into the Catholic Church, the only place I found answers for my questions/
Yeah, but are the answers any good or did you just delude yourself into thinking they are good. I would guess the latter.
Sheep.
That’s exactly why I’m Catholic. I’m a sheep.
One day I caught myself in my own ignorance. I was sitting in Starbucks, debating a theological issue with my fiance (now wife). I was really going at it with napkin diagrams and everything. And when I finally stopped to take a breath, she just looked at me with this painful look on her face. It stopped me dead. She saw right through me, I was just picking and choosing religious ideas to help justify my pre-conceived thoughts.
That started my return to the Catholic Church. I’m happy to be a sheep and submit to the Good Shepherd and His Bride. I know what I’m capable of when I don’t.
‘The magisterium is infallible because it is guided by the Holy Spirit.’
Yeah, one can believe anything I guess. That one is a whopper.
So, YZ, are you saying the Holy Spirit is incapable of leading the men who make up the magisterium? Or are you saying the Holy Spirit refuses to do so, which kinda flies in the face of Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us?
/So, YZ, are you saying the Holy Spirit is incapable of leading the men who make up the magisterium? Or are you saying the Holy Spirit refuses to do so, which kinda flies in the face of Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us?/
Oh good grief. Of course if thats what you believe you can believe it. Your asking it as if it is a factual question. One can believe anything. Like patron saints of the internet, saints for this and that.
The question is not whether one can believe it but rather WHY you do so rather than use your own brain to read it yourself which is all your popes are doing anyway.
/I was sitting in Starbucks, debating a theological issue with my fiance (now wife). I was really going at it with napkin diagrams and everything. And when I finally stopped to take a breath, she just looked at me with this painful look on her face. It stopped me dead. She saw right through me, I was just picking and choosing religious ideas to help justify my pre-conceived thoughts.
That started my return to the Catholic Church. I’m happy to be a sheep and submit to the Good Shepherd and His Bride./
That is truly one of the saddest things I have seen written anywhere. If it makes you happy ok. It’s your life. But rather than use your own mind and egads-think you choose obedience to other men and pretend it’s God. I have no problem with that for you. Your pre-conceiveded thoughts? Example?
“beside the point entirely”
Sigh. I’d hoped you would have thought about it and answered the question instead of copping out.
“The question is not whether one can believe it but rather WHY you do so…”
That was part of my question to you.
/Sigh. I’d hoped you would have thought about it and answered the question instead of copping out./
Sigh? It’s beside the point. It doesn’t matter if I believe it or not. It’s a belief no evidence could possibly exist to prove such an ascertion. It’s a pointless discussion. If you or I take it on faith then thats the end of the discussion.
The Why is different.
But rather than use your own mind and egads-think you choose obedience to other men and pretend it’s God.
That’s the thing though, I used my own mind in deciding to put my trust in the Church. It didn’t happen overnight. I learned a lot about the Catholic Church as well as the Reformation and several Protestant traditions. In fact it’s by using my own mind that I realized I can’t trust myself to grasp Christianity on my own and needed to submit to Christ’s Church. I sin all the time because I don’t listen to the Holy Spirit, why should I believe that when I’m studying the Bible I’m any better?
And just because I trust Rome’s Magisterium doesn’t mean I don’t think. You see fences that keep me stuck in, I see fences that keep falsehoods out. The fenced in areas are actually much larger and more open than they appear to outsiders. Having the fence in place actually leaves me an incredible amount of freedom to explore my pasture in safety.
Your pre-conceiveded thoughts? Example?
I wasn’t practicing anything at the time. I didn’t outright reject the Triune God, I had very little faith. I was pretty much secular but covered in a film of Christianity. The point I was trying to make that day in Starbucks was that somehow all faiths lead to God. Different people take different paths, but they all lead to the same place. Like I said, the look in my wife’s eyes was enough to make me see my own stupidity. She didn’t even need to use words.
That one story doesn’t prove that I’m incapable of living the Gospel without the Catholic Church. If I had been a better Christian I would have never made such outlandish statements. But it was a turning point for me. In returning back to God I always had to make a leap of faith first and accept each point of belief before I was able to truly understand it in depth. Eventually after chipping away at it I was at the point where I had to decide whether or not to accept the Catholic Church’s claim of being the Church that Christ founded. I made the leap, and after I did everything else began making so much more sense.
Isn’t ‘egads‘ a word that was used by that teen-age dame that was in ‘The Music Man’???
I haven’t heard that word for soooooo long!!!
YZ, when I started to take my faith seriously, I made a commitment to follow Christ wherever He would lead me. I studied my Bible and prayed and *surprise* He led me right into the Catholic Church.
I used to believe all the stuff you are spouting… heck, I used to TEACH it, until I found out it was all rot. Everything I thought I knew about the Church was wrong, and all the most fundamental truths of the faith I professed came from historic Catholicism.
If you believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God, then to that extent you are already a Catholic – whether you know it or not and whether you like it or not.
/In fact it’s by using my own mind that I realized I can’t trust myself to grasp Christianity on my own and needed to submit to Christ’s Church. I sin all the time because I don’t listen to the Holy Spirit, why should I believe that when I’m studying the Bible I’m any better?/
Wow, thats just a Wow! You have so little confidence in yourself that you would rather trust another human with the exact same experience. Why should a fallible priest be any better than you when studying the bible? What makes you think the HS isn’t guiding you when you read the bible?
/Different people take different paths, but they all lead to the same place. Like I said, the look in my wife’s eyes was enough to make me see my own stupidity. /
This was stupidity to you. You resolved this ‘stupidity’ by thinking that adhereing to some bronze age superstitions cobbled together made sense to you. Ok, like I said if it works for you great but don’t throw around words like stupidity when it isn’t intelligence that brought you to your claim.
/I made the leap, and after I did everything else began making so much more sense./
Of course. All people of all religions think this way. All one has to do is look at discussion boards filled with ex-catholics who now feel the scales have fallen from their eyes once outside the church. It’s psychology 101. Nothing mysterious here.
/I used to believe all the stuff you are spouting… heck, I used to TEACH it, until I found out it was all rot. /
I haven’t said anything about what I believe so you are clueless.
/then to that extent you are already a Catholic – whether you know it or not and whether you like it or not./
Your are an arrogant individual aren’t you. This could easily be spun around and made to say you are a Muslim whether you like it or not. Silly.
YZ:
YZ:
Clearly, you have no historical knowledge of how the bible came to be.
The Bible, in fact, came from the Catholic Church!
The Canon of Scripture (i.e, just which books actually belong in the Bible) can’t be found in the individuals books that comprise the bible. You can’t go to the individual books of the bible to determine which are authentically inspired and deemed as Scripture. Did you even know there were so many other books in addition to those that actually became part of the bible that the Church had to decide which of them formed Scripture in the fourth century?
So, if you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, you shouldn’t trust the books that the Church declared the “New Testament”, which Protestants to this day still put faith in.
FF Bruce during his lifetime is known as kind of the Dean of Evangelical Christians. He was very well respected as a Scholar and he has a book that I believe is called “The Canon of the New Testament” or it might be “The Canon of the Bible”.
Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it.
In fact, if you don’t trust the so-called “Roman” Church, you then should doubt all the books that comprise the New Testament in your bible, and, in addition, take up all those other books that the Catholic Church rejected time and again in the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).
I mean, who’s to say that the Catholic Church did not make a mistake when they were deciding which books belonged in the Bible and when they rejected all those other books they threw out when deciding the Canon of the New Testament???
Your are an arrogant individual aren’t you. This could easily be spun around and made to say you are a Muslim whether you like it or not. Silly.
Don’t call Tim J. an arrogant individual — it is you who are the arrogant one for casting insults on a lot of folks here without really knowing what you’re talking about.
You don’t even know anything about Church history and how the bible came to be, so for you to insult Tim J. as you have here when he was merely trying to do something charitable for you is an act of arrogance itself.
Tim J. may be many other things, but this certainly isn’t one of them.
Sparki posted:
“So, YZ, are you saying the Holy Spirit is incapable of leading the men who make up the magisterium? Or are you saying the Holy Spirit refuses to do so, which kinda flies in the face of Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us?”
Man is just that, capable of sin and NOT God. Their hearts and minds must be open to the holy spirit and not enter into a council or teaching with preconceived notions
/Don’t call Tim J. an arrogant individual — it is you who are the arrogant one for casting insults on a lot of folks here without really knowing what you’re talking about./
I haven’t insulted anyone. I know exactly what I’m talking about.
/You don’t even know anything about Church history and how the bible came to be, so for you to insult Tim J. as you have here when he was merely trying to do something charitable for you is an act of arrogance itself./
When was this disputed by me? What are you blathering about?
“it is you who are the arrogant one.”
Exactly, Esau. He also seems to want to avoid facing any question whose answer doesn’t fit into the fence he has built around his mind.
/Man is just that, capable of sin and NOT God. Their hearts and minds must be open to the holy spirit and not enter into a council or teaching with preconceived notions/
You just did. Your preconceieved notion is the first sentence you have written.
“I haven’t insulted anyone.”
Amazing.
Why should a fallible priest be any better than you when studying the bible?
I don’t know, why should he? I never said that he was.
What makes you think the HS isn’t guiding you when you read the bible?
I didn’t say that. I said that I’m just as likely to not listen to the Holy Spirit when I’m reading the Bible as I am any other time. The Holy Spirit is always guiding me, yet I still choose to disobey him and sin. What prevents me from choosing to do the same while studying the Bible?
You resolved this ‘stupidity’ by thinking that adhereing to some bronze age superstitions cobbled together made sense to you.
Yes, YZ. I said to myself that instant, “I must find the most superstitious religion I can and adhere to it.” I told you before that I went and studied several Christian traditions, I didn’t just jump onto the Catholic boat.
Of course. All people of all religions think this way. All one has to do is look at discussion boards filled with ex-catholics who now feel the scales have fallen from their eyes once outside the church. It’s psychology 101. Nothing mysterious here.
How did you find your faith, YZ. It’s the nature of faith that no matter how much you learn at some point you have to jump before you can fully understand. When I tried to make that jump with certain Protestant beliefs, it only left me with more and more loose ends. When I made the jump into Catholicism everything began falling into place.
You came in here seemingly looking to pick a fight rather than engage in earnest debate. Yet I went out on a limb and told you my very personal story of why I’m Catholic. You’ve done nothing but twist my words around and tear me apart. Would you be so kind as to share the story of how you came to believe what you do? I can’t imagine it measuring up to the standards you’ve placed on the rest of us.
You folks are incredible.
/He also seems to want to avoid facing any question whose answer doesn’t fit into the fence he has built around his mind./
This is so silly. What question haven’t I faced? I have answered every comment on this thread.
A fence in my mind? Puh-leez. I am reading everything you write.
YZ just revealed himself in his reply to John. He believes nothing and is just trying to be contrary. There’s no point in any more discussion with him.
bill912- When have I insulted anyone? really my comments are above show me the insult.
/ don’t know, why should he? I never said that he was/
Exactly.
/ didn’t say that. I said that I’m just as likely to not listen to the Holy Spirit when I’m reading the Bible as I am any other time. The Holy Spirit is always guiding me, yet I still choose to disobey him and sin. What prevents me from choosing to do the same while studying the Bible?/
How could you? Likewise how do you know it isn’t happening to the priests as well?
/Yes, YZ. I said to myself that instant, “I must find the most superstitious religion I can and adhere to it.” I told you before that I went and studied several Christian traditions/
I don’t know how you did it but the end result is the same.
/When I tried to make that jump with certain Protestant beliefs, it only left me with more and more loose ends. When I made the jump into Catholicism everything began falling into place./
I have repeatedly said that is fine. Just understand that your very subjective experience works the opposite way for multitudes as well. being first isn’t the same as being right.
/You came in here seemingly looking to pick a fight rather than engage in earnest debate. /
One cannot debate religion in a rational way, faith makes it a stale mate. I was/am just conversating.
/ You’ve done nothing but twist my words around and tear me apart./
I haven’t twisted anything you said at all.
/Would you be so kind as to share the story of how you came to believe what you do? I can’t imagine it measuring up to the standards you’ve placed on the rest of us./
What standard have I placed on you?
YOU called people who think there are many ways to God essentially stupid.
Others arrogantly claim their religion the ‘correct’ one and others ‘prodigal’ from above. It seems to me some folks need a mirror.
/If the Holy Spirit guides each person in their interpretation of Scripture, how can 10 people read the Bible and come up with 10 different interpretations? Whose interpretation is correct?/
maybe none- your making an assumption.
And what assumption is that?
/If they’re all guided by the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t each interpretation be correct?/
You would think so.
Yes, you would, wouldn’t you? But it’s impossible for 10 different interpretations to be 100% correct, because if they’re different they must contain some contradictions. So, either that’s a failing of Man or a failing of the Holy Spirit.
Do you think that Jesus just abandoned Christianity to fallible interpreters? Does it make sense that he would do so that he would do so given His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church?
/If only one interpretation is correct, how are we supposed to know who was really guided by the Holy Spirit and who wasn’t?/
Exactly, I don’t think your method provides an answer either. What you have done is set up a false dicotomy, if I answer no you’ll say see you need magisterum. But in reality they are as likely to be just as wrong and are in several places but it won’t matter as you must have faith in them. Sheep.
See my question above.
Also, YZ –
Are you under the impression that Catholics believe that all priests are infallible interpreters of Scripture?
If so, I can assure you that’s not the case. Infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals is reserved for the Pope alone by grace of apostolic tradition.
Priests themselves are certainly fallible and can make mistakes. You’ll find no Catholic in this combox who will claim otherwise.
Bill posted:
“YZ just revealed himself in his reply to John. He believes nothing and is just trying to be contrary. There’s no point in any more discussion with him.”
Yes Bill, you and Esau for the hundreth time when someone does not possibly agree with your warped sense of Catholicism, right away you think it is John (me) hiding behind another screen name as Esau, David and the other little boys here do so often in their lame attempts to discredit me and others.
Tim-ever think that there are MANY that dont buy into you, Esau and David B (or whatever name he is using today??)
/And what assumption is that?/
I don’t have the time to explain it.
/But it’s impossible for 10 different interpretations to be 100% correct, because if they’re different they must contain some contradictions. So, either that’s a failing of Man or a failing of the Holy Spirit/
Again it’s an assumption. It’s possible that God is more complex than you imagine him to be in your box. You are presuming he must behave in a way that is consistent to you.
/Do you think that Jesus just abandoned Christianity to fallible interpreters? Does it make sense that he would do so that he would do so given His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church?/
You are again creating a false dicotomy and operating on assumption. None of this shows any way that a particular set of interpreters are correct. It’s just as likely God set Martin Luther guided by the HS to correct the errors in the church.
/Infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals is reserved for the Pope alone by grace of apostolic tradition. /
Is the pope not just a man- when I say priest he gets included.
And for the record I am not John. This has been my first visit to this blog.
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSN3023920920070503
With the Pope about to visit Brazil, more alarm as reported on Spirit Daily and Reuters with Brazilians leaving the church in droves over the past 30 years for the Evangelical Protestant message (maybe the Church of love of Vatican II and we all get to heaven is not working after all?) with now the Catholic church in Brazil not trying to go back to her roots when she was strong, but instead instituting “speaking in tongues”, dance, and other charismatic crazies into the mass and worship.
Rising Protestant tide sweeps Catholic Brazil
When the late Pope John Paul II visited Brazil in 1980, 89 percent of Brazilians identified themselves as Catholic. By 2000, when the last census was taken, the share of Catholics in the population had fallen to 74 percent.
The number of evangelical Protestants nearly tripled in the same period to 26 million, or about 15 percent of the population. That growth, which is expected to continue, is dramatically altering the religious landscape of a country where the national identity has been intertwined with Catholicism since the Portuguese landed 500 years ago
The Catholic Church, which is also losing followers to secularism, has responded to the Pentecostal boom by borrowing some evangelical thunder. In a movement that has come to be known as the Charismatic Renewal, some Catholic churches in Brazil have adopted animated worship styles and Pentecostal practices like speaking in tongues and divine healin
John, I did NOT assume that YZ is you posting under another screen name. I’ve never doubted that you believe the things you post.
In other words, John, I think that you are wrong about some things, but I do believe that you are honest.
Bill912- when did I insult someone?
Why does it matter what i do or don’t believe for tha matter of this discussion?
John, Bill was agreeing with you when he said that. He wasn’t saying you and YZ are the same person.
Interesting debate.
YZ: do you believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God?
Why does it matter what i do or don’t believe for tha matter of this discussion?
Well usually that’s how discussions work, YZ. We get to know you, you get to know us. Maybe we can even like each other despite our differences. By explaining what you believe you can help to rid us of our misconceptions about you, just in the same way we’ve been trying to show you the areas where your perception of certain points of Catholicism may differ from the way that Catholics understand them.
I don’t have the time to explain it.
In other words, you can’t.
Again it’s an assumption. It’s possible that God is more complex than you imagine him to be in your box. You are presuming he must behave in a way that is consistent to you.
Given the fact that God created a very ordered universe, and given the fact that he gave dominion over creation to Man, and given the fact that He entrusted earthly leadership of his church to Man, I do indeed presume that he operates in a way consistent with His creation and His order.
You are again creating a false dicotomy and operating on assumption. None of this shows any way that a particular set of interpreters are correct. It’s just as likely God set Martin Luther guided by the HS to correct the errors in the church.
Did Jesus give Martin Luther the keys to the kingdom? Did Jesus change Martin Luther’s name to “Rock” and then say, “Upon you I shall build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”?
Nope. That honor was reserved for Peter, the first pope, and the line of apostolic tradition has continued in an unbroken line down to Benedict XVI.
The Pope is just a man. You’re entirely correct. However, the OFFICE of the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, and with that DIVINE guidance the man who holds the office of Pope cannot teach error when it comes to infallible pronouncements about faith and morals.
This is the system that Jesus instituted to ensure that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church.
Yes Bill, you and Esau for the hundreth time when someone does not possibly agree with your warped sense of Catholicism, right away you think it is John (me) hiding behind another screen name as Esau, David and the other little boys here do so often in their lame attempts to discredit me and others.
Tim-ever think that there are MANY that dont buy into you, Esau and David B (or whatever name he is using today??)
John:
Just for once, can you stop making each and every thread about you???
We’re talking to YZ.
Also, stop it already with your lame lies about me and David B.
I’m more interested here in what YZ has to say than your usual cut-and-pastes from other websites disguised as your own opinion.
YZ is the one who’s trying to discuss something here that is of relevance, so I would ask you to please quit it and cease your inflated sense of ego for once in order to allow a non-Catholic brethren to submit his arguments on a thread that’s relevant to him.
YZ,
Allow me to educate you in turn:
“Yet Scripture and tradition amply testify to the presence of a centralized authority structure from the beginning of the Church. Not only does the New Testament portray Christ as explicitly commissioning the Twelve, investing them with power (to heal, cast out demons, etc.) and authority (to teach, baptize, forgive sins, “bind and loose,” etc.), but it has Christ proclaiming that He will establish His Church upon Peter, whose name He changes from “Simon” to “Cephas” (from the Aramaic word for “Rock”), and bestowing upon him the unique power of the “Keys of the Kingdom.” Petrine primacy is evident even from the circumstantial details of the citation of the Twelve in the New Testament. For example, the second most commonly cited apostle in the New Testament is John, “the beloved disciple,” whose name appears a total of 30 times. But the most frequently cited apostle, Peter, is mentioned 179 times, and in each listing of a group of the apostles, regardless of the order in which the others are named, his name always heads the list. Beyond this, there are numerous additional things one could point to, such as the manner in which Peter exercises leadership in the selection of Judas’ successor in the first chapter of Acts, or his prominent role in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), even though the Council took place in the city where, according to tradition, James was the local bishop.
The hierarchical structure of the early Church is amply attested in the New Testament. The first episcopal synod, far from occurring only in the third century after Christ, is recorded in the Book of Acts as having taken place under the episcopal oversight of Peter and James themselves, in Jerusalem, where they met to deliberate over norms of ecclesiastical discipline to be imposed on gentile Christians in distant Antioch (in modern-day Turkey).
Moreover, to underline the divine authority of their decree, they explicitly identify their decision with the will of the Holy Spirit, declaring: “it has seemed good to the Holy spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (Acts 15:28, emphasis added).
Further, the New Testament itself uses the hierarchical distinctions between bishops, priests, and deacons, even if the writers are not careful to distinguish the fact that bishops are also priests (presbyters) and yet how they also differ from other priests.
In any case, it is abundantly clear from the writings of Ignatius of Antioch early in the second century, that this threefold distinction was already widely in use and conceptually clear (Letter to the Magnesians, 6, 1; 13, 1; Letter to the Trallians, 3, 1; 7, 2; Letter to the Philadelphians, 7, 1). Furthermore, as early as A.D. 80, we see the bishop of Rome (Pope Clement I, in a letter to the church in Corinth) exercising his authority over a local church in distant Greece, simply assuming that his jurisdiction extends to all particular churches in certain matters of ecclesiastical discipline as well as doctrine.”
“YZ is the one who’s trying to discuss something here…”
Gotta disagree with you, Esau. I don’t think YZ is trying to do anything except be contrary. I’ll happily be proven wrong.
/By explaining what you believe you can help to rid us of our misconceptions about you, just in the same way we’ve been trying to show you the areas where your perception of certain points of Catholicism may differ from the way that Catholics understand them./
I think that it is simply distracting from the discussion at hand.
/In other words, you can’t/
No it’s basic and I don’t have time.
/Given the fact that God created a very ordered universe, and given the fact that he gave dominion over creation to Man, and given the fact that He entrusted earthly leadership of his church to Man, I do indeed presume that he operates in a way consistent with His creation and His order. /
Assumption, false dicotomy, assumption.
/Did Jesus give Martin Luther the keys to the kingdom? Did Jesus change Martin Luther’s name to “Rock” and then say, “Upon you I shall build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”?/
He didn’t give anyone the keys. Your assuming again based on faith. The passage you mention is much debated and again must be taken on faith. None of this makes for an interesting discussion as faith ends the thinking.
/That honor was reserved for Peter, the first pope, and the line of apostolic tradition has continued in an unbroken line down to Benedict XVI. /
Please- there was a time when multiple popes existed at the same time. I will give the RCC credit for keeping someone in power for so long but it’s not a terribly good argument to say our President comes form God because we have a president.
/However, the OFFICE of the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, and with that DIVINE guidance the man who holds the office of Pope cannot teach error when it comes to infallible pronouncements about faith and morals/
Assumption. You are presuming the things to be true and then going from there. You have faith in these things. It’s not a logical argument. In fact it’s the opposite. Outlandish. The popes pronouncements have caused alot of harm throughout history and to this day. I don’t see any infallible pronouncements coming from there on morality. Oftentimes quite the opposite. It would be hard for the devil to do better on some issues.
/This is the system that Jesus instituted to ensure that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church./
He doesn’t need a system. Just to speak the words. The way you rpesent your version of God makes him seem small and weak.
I rest my case.
YZ:
Virtually every dogma of the Christian Faith is not found explicitly in the bible, in Scripture.
The word Trinity is not there. It was, in fact, a Catholic who coined the word, Theophilus of Antioch in 181 AD.
Incarnation also is not explicitly found in Scripture.
The point is, without the Catholic Church to expound on these thelogical aspects of the Christian Faith, you would have the chaos that’s clearly demonstrated in Protestantism when one goes by Sola Scriptura where you have people who, though they acknowledge the bible as their authority, do not acknowledge the divine nature of Jesus or even the Trinity.
Just who of these Protestant folks, from the hundreds of contradicting biblical interpretations, have the right interpretation and exactly the precise set of beliefs that go way back to the Early Christian Church, to the very time of the Apostles, all of which were originally transmitted orally?
sdg-
As I have said before—and the postings above prove it!.
If we are to be so thankful to Rome , not only for producing, interpreting and deciding the Canon of Scripture–then no wonder your allegiance to sola ecclesia.
After all, the Scriptures are irrelevant , without authority and powerless—that is UNTIL Rome decides to touch them and grant them their “status”.
I see that Erick is again touting his made-up doctrine of “sola ecclesia” that he applies to us.
Esau, I think I’ve met some of YZ’s friends before.
I don’t think YZ is Protestant. My guess is he’s from one of the apostolic churches in existence before the Catholic Church. They, being apostolic had everything right and didn’t fall into the same errors that the Catholic Church did. They were also able to survive when the Catholic Church imposed it’s will on all of Christianity. His church isn’t protestant because it was never Catholic and therefore never rebelled from it during the Protestant reformation. I also don’t think he believes in the Trinity (it’s not written literally in the Bible, the Catholics just made it up by piecing bits of the Bible together).
YZ, am I close? If I’m way off I’m sorry. I just couldn’t wait in suspense any longer to learn about you.
esau-
“The point is, without the Catholic Church to expound on these thelogical aspects of the Christian Faith, you would have the chaos that’s clearly demonstrated in Protestantism when one goes by Sola Scriptura where you have people who, though they acknowledge the bible as their authority, do not acknowledge the divine nature of Jesus or even the Trinity.”
Esau— this is your famous “straw man” argument!!! sigh! again!–
To lump Unitarians and Arians as part of Protestantism is tantamount to me lumping you guys with the religion of Santeria!.
Come on Esau!–you know better.
After all, the Scriptures are irrelevant , without authority and powerless—that is UNTIL Rome decides to touch them and grant them their “status”.
erick:
Did the Bible itself somehow fall from the sky, already complete with the corresponding books?
Also, where in the Bible does it say exactly which books belong to it?
How do you know that the books that comprise the New Testament are authentic, inerrant and inspired?
Where in any of the accepted books of the bible does it say that Christ would establish a ‘book’ that would contain His Authority?
Martin Luther is an ally on this question.
In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this:
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”
“The primary difference is I can read a book and have faith in it’s precepts. But to see obviously flawed men who are no different than you or I and think they had some divine insight not given to you or I is an additional and unnecessary step.”
It’s not unnecessary if the book you have faith in tells you to believe that men who are no different than you or me have some divine insight not given to you or me. In that case, to be logically consistent, one must accept the Magisterium.
YZ, you really need to take some remedial courses in Logic. You’re way out of your depth here.
erick:
I’ll give you some examples —
Do you consider “Assembly of God” Christians?
How about “Pentecostals”?
Are these not Protestants?
Brian is on the right track here I think.
I don’t think YZ is Protestant. My guess is he’s from one of the apostolic churches in existence before the Catholic Church. They, being apostolic had everything right and didn’t fall into the same errors that the Catholic Church did. They were also able to survive when the Catholic Church imposed it’s will on all of Christianity. His church isn’t protestant because it was never Catholic and therefore never rebelled from it during the Protestant reformation. I also don’t think he believes in the Trinity (it’s not written literally in the Bible, the Catholics just made it up by piecing bits of the Bible together).
erick:
What is Truth? Is it relative?
“He didn’t give anyone the keys. Your assuming again based on faith.”
On the contrary, He gave them to St. Peter. But if you do not accept the testimony of the historical record, nor the testimony of Scripture, nor the testimony of Christian tradition, then there is nothing we can talk about here. Your beliefs are neither Christian nor true.
“One cannot debate religion in a rational way…”
Actually, one CAN, but you apparently can not.
When faith and reason are divorced, you get nonsense like YZ is posting and truly, there IS no rational argument that can be made against it, because it is not rational to begin with, as he admits.
So, why waste our time?
Kathleen-
No- it is absolute!.
On the contrary, Erick, the Catholic Church herself teaches:
The Church’s teaching authority is not above the word of God, but serves it. That is Catholic teaching; if you want to rail against something else, you are railing against a figment of your own imagination, a phantom Catholicism of anti-Catholic devising.
Thanks Erick.
How do you determine what is True?
Sdg-
“if you want to rail against something else, you are railing against a figment of your own imagination, a phantom Catholicism of anti-Catholic devising.”
Let’s see if this is just my imagination….
“Virtually every dogma of the Christian Faith is not found explicitly in the bible, in Scripture.”
”
The Bible, in fact, came from the Catholic Church!”
MMMM…no I don’t think so!.
As a brand-new Catholic, I’m still not getting how we as Catholics differentiate the Bible and its divinely inspired statements, as Jimmy characterizes it:
“The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written”
…from as John operating as one of the earlier posters in this article describes, magesterial statements, which can be described as WRITTEN statements, and infallible, such as to suggest they must be God’s word (where else would the infallibility come from, or stated another way would God allow the Church to make an incorrect or fallible magesterial statement).
I understand that a divinely inspired new testament book author, writing down God’s words as he receives them, creates “God’s word.”
I guess what doesn’t make sense though, is how the author of a magesterial writing, creating a document which is considered infallible because God gives the author of the statement the power to make such a statement infallible, does not also by writing down such a God inspired infallible statement, write down the word of God.
The explanations provided so far seem like simple semantic arguments or gamesw, or plays on definitions, and not a clear differentiation of the two…
Are magesterial statements not divinely inspired?
I ask sincerely.
Peace,
MNJohn
“After all, the Scriptures are irrelevant , without authority and powerless—that is UNTIL Rome decides to touch them and grant them their “status”.”
Straw man. How long will it take you to get this, erick? The Catholic Church did not wave a magic wand and “grant” authority to the books of the Bible. All authority comes from Christ. The books of the New Testament were authoritative because of their link to the Apostles – and the Church was authoritative FOR THE SAME REASON.
There were MANY books claiming authority during the first centuries of the Church, but only certain books actually HAD real apostolic authority. How could the world KNOW which ones truly carried this authority? By asking the Church, which was established by THE SAME authority.
The question was “which of all these books are we to accept as being of genuine apostolic authority?”.
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church proclaimed a certain LIST of books as being genuinely apostolic, according to their constant *Tradition* (OH!… that WORD!).
It is this list – the Canon – that was proclaimed with authority by the Church. The books themselves were ALREADY authoritative, but there was no reliable, authoritative LIST of these books. Whereas before many were confused by all the books claiming to be scripture, afterward this list was accepted as definitive (and exclusive) by ALL the Christian faithful… until Luther.
Another word for this List, this Canon, is – “The Bible”.
In short, the Apostolic Church proclaimed “Here are the Apostolic Books”.
Look at it this way. Imagine a crowd of people were to approach me, and my brother was there with them. The crowd says to me “These THREE guys all claim to be your brother, but we can’t decide who is telling the truth. We want to know which one is really your brother.”.
Of course, I would recognize my brother immediately. Why? Because I GREW UP with him. How do I KNOW he is my brother? I have it on my parents’ authority – I have known him as my brother since we were both babies (in addition, there ARE certain resemblances). He and I share the same parents. We have the same lineage.
Now, if I say “HERE! THIS is my brother”, does that mean that he only became my brother in that instant? Of course not! In addition, because we ARE from the same parents, and grew up together (in other words, we share a history – a Tradition) he can testify about ME. He can now tell stories about me to the crowd, and they will believe him… not because I GAVE him authority, but because I testified to his authority. He had the authority all along, but the crowd was not sure of it.
The Church testifies as to the authority of the Bible, and the Bible testifies as to the authority of the Church. It all comes from the same source.
Nothing and I mean nothing is more funny that comments like these:
/you really need to take some remedial courses in Logic. You’re way out of your depth here./
From someone who accepts all manner of saints, infallible humans, and all manner of other superstition. It is not I who is lacking in logic.
/I rest my case/
About what?
/After all, the Scriptures are irrelevant , without authority and powerless—that is UNTIL Rome decides to touch them and grant them their “status”./
You folks are unbelievable. So until another reads them for you you won’t do it for yourself. It is amazing that adult human beings think like this.
/The point is, without the Catholic Church to expound on these thelogical aspects of the Christian Faith, you would have the chaos that’s clearly demonstrated in Protestantism when one goes by Sola Scriptura where you have people who, though they acknowledge the bible as their authority, do not acknowledge the divine nature of Jesus or even the Trinity./
There is no chaos in Protestantism. They rely on faith. It is amazingly consistent how they all come together on this point. It’s as if God himself ordains it. Your attacking a straw-man version.
Tim J-
Just for you.
/When faith and reason are divorced, you get nonsense like YZ is posting and truly, there IS no rational argument that can be made against it, because it is not rational to begin with, as he admits.
So, why waste our time?/
You believe an entire host of irrational premises and ideas. Faith and reason are polar opposites by defintion. You can believe whatever superstitous leanings you desire but they are not rational. I am honest enough to admit as such but you persist in deluding yourself otherwise. I support your right to do so.
/He gave them to St. Peter. But if you do not accept the testimony of the historical record, nor the testimony of Scripture, nor the testimony of Christian tradition, then there is nothing we can talk about here. Your beliefs are neither Christian nor true./
You act as if this is fact. It isn’t. There are many, many ways to interpret the verse your using. Start from an incorrect premise, and you get incorrect conclusions. The historical record doesn’t support your claim. So essentially your calling all Protestants non Christians. I suspect to you this is a form of insult.
/What is Truth? Is it relative?/
How do you? Or do you assume someone else has it and simply follow along?
MNJohn,
I like to think of it like Einstein discovering the relationship between mass and energy: e = mc^2
This relationship didn’t magically appear when Einstein discovered it, it was always true and matter always followed this law. Einstein just found a way to explain and define this relationship better and more clearly than we had ever known before.
That’s kind of how the Church’s teachings work. I don’t think whole documents are infallible, only the parts that specifically lay out doctrine.
These teachings aren’t infallible because the Church declared them; instead the Church declared them because they’ve always been true and over time the Church has been able to dig into revelation more deeply and understand it better. That’s why they’re infallible.
But unlike the Bible this “unraveling” of revelation isn’t inspired, just as science that discovers absolute truths of the universe isn’t inspired.
That type of analogy helps me to understand it. I’m sure the big guns around here can do a much better job explaining the technicalities and details than I can.
There is no chaos in Protestantism. They rely on faith. It is amazingly consistent how they all come together on this point.
YZ:
So, I take it anybody can be considered a Christian then, so long as they have faith?
Such as those who deny the Trinity; those who think Jesus was just man and not God; those who believe that Jesus was just a spirit but not of real flesh; etc.
By the way, your quoting erick, who is NOT even a Catholic, and remarking that it is of a ridiculous and superstitious Catholic mindset is quite amusing!
/These teachings aren’t infallible because the Church declared them; instead the Church declared them because they’ve always been true and over time the Church has been able to dig into revelation more deeply and understand it better. That’s why they’re infallible./
A profound as example of circular reasoning as exists on the internet.
/So, I take it anybody can be considered a Christian then, so long as they have faith?/
Faith is Jesus- I think that is the very defintion. A follower of Christ yes.
/By the way, your quoting erick, who is NOT even a Catholic, and remarking that it is of a ridiculous and superstitious Catholic mindset is quite amusing!/
Perhaps. But the comments come so fast and on 2 threads it’s easy to get confused. In the end it’s the statement that matters no whether he endorses the view or not. I don’t care if he is catholic or not.
“magesterial statements, which can be described as WRITTEN statements, and infallible, such as to suggest they must be God’s word”
Not so.
Inerrancy can not be equated with Divine Inspiration. If I score 100% on a math test, then that is “inerrant”, but I can’t claim that it is Divinely Inspired.
Similarly, if the Pope makes an infallible pronouncement (which is RARE) it is not guaranteed to be especially helpful, or complete, or inspiring, or anything except FREE FROM ERROR. In practice, of course, we do receive a great deal that is inspiring and helpful from Magisterial teaching, but if we are talking about the property of infallibilty, it means simply “free of error” in regard to faith and morals.
‘The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church proclaimed a certain LIST of books as being genuinely apostolic, according to their constant *Tradition* (OH!… that WORD!).’
This is not entirely correct. YZ is correct about the vote above. The vote was 568-563 and many wanted the other books included. In fact good arguments could be made that other books are much more in line with tradition than some who made the cut. Revelation was in, then out, then in again.
This entire process has the pure look of a man made enterprise. Which of course outside of dogma, which one can believe or not, is exactly what it was.
/So, I take it anybody can be considered a Christian then, so long as they have faith?/
Faith is Jesus- I think that is the very defintion. A follower of Christ yes.
So, you’re saying that it doesn’t matter what one believes about Jesus, whether they believe he was a human or a spirit; whether they believe in the Trinity or not — all of that doesn’t matter; the only thing that matters is faith?
Heck, then I could believe that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene, had a bunch of children, and I can still be considered a Christian, according to your statement!
Plus, I take it there really weren’t heretics, just Christians all along!
/Similarly, if the Pope makes an infallible pronouncement (which is RARE) it is not guaranteed to be especially helpful, or complete, or inspiring, or anything except FREE FROM ERROR/
Who could possibly put any stock in such a pronouncement from another human? I mean adult human beings think an invisible being talks to an old guy in Rome and what he relays is perfect. Instead of looking to get the man mental help he is actually listened to. Fortunately by an ever shrinking portion of the population.
Jesus is the way, the truth and life. (John 14:6)
How do we know Jesus? Because of the Church he established upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Jesus gave Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19)and appointed Peter as the leader over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22).
He also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus’ flock John 21:15-17).
Jesus gave Peter, and the apostles the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).
This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles but was passed on to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
And so it was in the early Church until and until the canon was established by the Catholic Church there was no Bible.
But, even if you disagree with what I say, how do you determine what is True?
This is not entirely correct. YZ is correct about the vote above. The vote was 568-563 and many wanted the other books included. In fact good arguments could be made that other books are much more in line with tradition than some who made the cut. Revelation was in, then out, then in again.
First of all, it’s amusing to see you refer to yourself in the third person.
Second, like yeah — I can see how the many Gnostic books would be more in line with tradition than those that ‘made the cut’!
Plus, what is this ‘tradition’ you speak of anyway?
Isn’t ‘faith’ enough and that ‘belief’ doesn’t really matter?
Like you said, I can believe what I want about Jesus and still be considered ‘Christian’!
Hm, I don’t see Esau saying “sola ecclesia.” You seem to have trouble reading.
“just as science that discovers absolute truths of the universe isn’t inspired.”
Science can develope and test theories, but it cannot prove ‘absolute truth’. Apparently science is your infallible teacher, and that’s sad.
/So, you’re saying that it doesn’t matter what one believes about Jesus, whether they believe he was a human or a spirit; whether they believe in the Trinity or not — all of that doesn’t matter; the only thing that matters is faith?/
You could make that argument yes. Jesus was pretty clear that faith was the real deal. The man on the cross beside him had nothing else.
/Heck, then I could believe that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene, had a bunch of children, and I can still be considered a Christian, according to your statement!/
Yes, I fail to see how any of that would diminish him in anyway. Why would it be so for you? Are you diminished if you have children? You seem to have a very exclusive God in the box idea of Jesus.
/Plus, I take it there really weren’t heretics, just Christians all along!/
Yes, that may be correct. Dominant groups always seek to declare those that disagree with them as heretics or worse. It happens in politics today. It’s them not us. Human psychology 101. It has nothing to do with the correctness of the dominant groups position.
/First of all, it’s amusing to see you refer to yourself in the third person./
I’m doing a couple of things at the same time. I cut and pasted. I’m glad you liked it.
/ can see how the many Gnostic books would be more in line with tradition than those that ‘made the cut’!/
There are over 200, not all gnostic.
/Isn’t ‘faith’ enough and that ‘belief’ doesn’t really matter?/
One and the same.
/Like you said, I can believe what I want about Jesus and still be considered ‘Christian’/
If you believe he will forgive your sins and follow him you can. His life story is secondary to this. So you still could.
/ And so it was in the early Church until and until the canon was established by the Catholic Church there was no Bible.
But, even if you disagree with what I say, how do you determine what is True?/
Start from an incorrect premise, and you get incorrect conclusions. Your presuming their is only one interpretation and then going from there. So no real discussion is possible. You’d have to prove your version correct to go from there.
Btw, John, your personal attacks upon me just prove that you don’t want a debate. You want lackeys who will accept your opinion as fact.
“just as science that discovers absolute truths of the universe isn’t inspired.”
Science can develope and test theories, but it cannot prove ‘absolute truth’. Apparently science is your infallible teacher, and that’s sad.
David B. isn’t the premise of the natural sciences that science discovers the truths of an orderly universe created by God. I’m on your side here. Where have I said something wrong?
The Magisterium doesn’t prove absolute truth, it just proclaims it. The Truth comes from God. Something doesn’t become true because the Church proclaims it, it always was true and that’s why its infallible.
Don’t. Feed. The. Troll.
(This message comes to you courtesy of the your Local Organized Virtue Enterprize (L.O.V.E.)
“If you believe he will forgive your sins and follow him you can. His life story is secondary to this. So you still could.”
Following is work, YZ. You’re no real protestant Christian! You propose I can work my way to heaven by following Jesus! You’re no better than those romanish papists! Demon be gone!!!
Its faith alone folks. Faith in…something.
YZ:
So you are saying there is no Truth?
Just a question, if you can give an answer, because after all, this thread was to discuss why Dr. Beckwith converted to Roman Catholicism.
I’ve made it clear what I believe and why. I did not say that theirs was the only interpretation so your conclusion about my premise is wrong. Since you won’t reveal what you believe is true and how you arrive at that conclusion then perhaps it is you with whom no discussion can be had.
Faith in faith.
Well, hey, at least YZ doesn’t put his faith in men… he goes right to Wikipedia.
I assure you I didn’t come here to troll but rather to conversate. I linked here from another website and frankly the arrogance of some of the views made me want to discuss. There where just to many replies and I didn’t want to be rude and ignore folks hence the many postings. I’ll leave you folks alone. But it has been fun.
I’d encourage you to vet your views away from your home turf at larger blogs such as:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/ or
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Have a great day folks.
Brian,
Opps. Sorry. I thought you post was YZ.
David B. isn’t the premise of the natural sciences that science discovers the truths of an orderly universe created by God.
Correct. But we should remember that while science is invaluable in seeking answers to our questions about nature, and while it can potentially help us to believe in God, it in itself cannot prove absolute truth. Galileo made that errorenous assumption.
I’m sure you agree. I only responded the way I did because I failed to read who wrote the post, and assumed that YZ was saying that religion is fallible, while science is not. I apologize once more.
/Following is work, YZ. You’re no real protestant Christian! You propose I can work my way to heaven by following Jesus! You’re no better than those romanish papists! Demon be gone!!!
Its faith alone folks. Faith in…something/
I actually agree with that, It is faith alone. You cannot work your way to heaven.
Tim J-
/Faith in faith.
Well, hey, at least YZ doesn’t put his faith in men… he goes right to Wikipedia/
yes that is what it amounts to faith in faith and the promises of Jesus. And the Wikipedia comment was unnecessary. What would you have me do on a blog? List the books in my library. Wikipedia exists for this sort of thing. But of course you would toss it up as some form of failing. Poor.
/I only responded the way I did because I failed to read who wrote the post, and assumed that YZ was saying that religion is fallible, while science is not. I apologize once more. /
Both are fallible as both originate with men. But only one is self correcting.
/The Magisterium doesn’t prove absolute truth, it just proclaims it. The Truth comes from God. Something doesn’t become true because the Church proclaims it, it always was true and that’s why its infallible./
I just can’t believe you can’t see the logical holes in your statement. While the premise may be correct(or not) it in no way shape or form makes the church(one of many) proclaimations truth.
“Both are fallible as both originate with men. But only one is self correcting.”
The Bible written by men, but was inspired by God.
Teach them to observe all I (Jesus Christ. God and Man.) have commanded you.
YZ,
Fact: for 1000 years, the Catholic Church was the only Christian in the world. (aside from tiny cults here and there)
/The Bible written by men, but was inspired by God. /
This is an ascertion for which you or I have no evidence. It’s irrational but may be taken on faith. You toss it out there like it’s a new thought.
/Fact: for 1000 years, the Catholic Church was the only Christian in the world. (aside from tiny cults here and there)/
Your own statement is self refuting. They can’t be the only if others existed. And again being the only is no evidence of the truth of the claims of the organization.
Correct. But we should remember that while science is invaluable in seeking answers to our questions about nature, and while it can potentially help us to believe in God, it in itself cannot prove absolute truth. Galileo made that errorenous assumption.
Right, but in the same way that science can’t make something true just by declaring it, neither can the Church. The Church doesn’t make any new truths. It just affirms truths that have always existed. For example, the Immaculate Conception didn’t become true when the Church made it dogma. It always was true, the Church just reached the point where it understood it well enough to affirm it. The Magisterium isn’t infallible because the Church says so, it’s infallible because it’s the Truth guaranteed as such by the Holy Spirit.
/These teachings aren’t infallible because the Church declared them; instead the Church declared them because they’ve always been true and over time the Church has been able to dig into revelation more deeply and understand it better. That’s why they’re infallible./
A profound as example of circular reasoning as exists on the internet.
YZ, one aspect of this that isn’t circular is that the Truth cannot contradict itself. The Catholic Church claims to be the Church that Christ founded, therefore if the Magisterium of the Catholic Church ever contradicts itself it would prove that it’s not Christ’s Church. These seems like it would be a simple thing for you to prove; you only need to find one contradiction to crush all of our faith in the Catholic Church. Yet no one seems to be convinced by your arguments. You’re giving the phantom which you believe to be the Catholic Church a real beating, but you haven’t touched the real Church we believe in.
YZ,
“This is an ascertion for which you or I have no evidence. It’s irrational but may be taken on faith.
Faith isn’t irrational. Here’s an article from Catholic answers which will provide a better answer than I have the time for. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510clas.asp
“You toss it out there like it’s a new thought.”
No, I didn’t. But you speak as if your were the first to not believe in absolute truth.
“Your own statement is self refuting. They can’t be the only if others existed. ”
The others were gnostice group which denied Christ physical body existed.
” And again being the only is no evidence of the truth of the claims of the organization”
The basis of obediance to a church ius wether or not it is the Church Christ founded. Only one can actually make that claim: the Catholic Church.
Brian,
” The Magisterium isn’t infallible because the Church says so, it’s infallible because it’s the Truth guaranteed as such by the Holy Spirit.”
Right on! Preach it, brother!
YZ said:
/So, you’re saying that it doesn’t matter what one believes about Jesus, whether they believe he was a human or a spirit; whether they believe in the Trinity or not — all of that doesn’t matter; the only thing that matters is faith?/
You could make that argument yes. Jesus was pretty clear that faith was the real deal. The man on the cross beside him had nothing else.
/Heck, then I could believe that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene, had a bunch of children, and I can still be considered a Christian, according to your statement!/
Yes, I fail to see how any of that would diminish him in anyway. Why would it be so for you? Are you diminished if you have children? You seem to have a very exclusive God in the box idea of Jesus.
/Plus, I take it there really weren’t heretics, just Christians all along!/
Yes, that may be correct. Dominant groups always seek to declare those that disagree with them as heretics or worse. It happens in politics today. It’s them not us. Human psychology 101. It has nothing to do with the correctness of the dominant groups position.
Thus, I can believe whatever I want about Jesus and still be called ‘Christian’!
Okay, then I believe that Jesus was nothing but an alien being who performed not miracles, but operations of a highly advanced and scientific nature who not really died on the cross but, in fact, had a clone to suffer its agony in order to proliferate an ancient myth that would one day become man’s religion!
How’s that!
You say that the church is but man-made — I’ll raise those stakes and submit an even greater challenge: prove to me that the bible, that was written by men, was not itself man-made!
Dianetics was written by man — yet, a religion happened to be borne out of it. What makes that not God-inspired and not man-made?
What makes Jesus any more real than Hercules? What makes Yahweh more real than Zeus?
Myth versus religion!
Both can be equated as being the same thing, YZ!
So where is your proof????
if the Magisterium of the Catholic Church ever contradicts itself it would prove that it’s not Christ’s Church.
You mean, if the Magisterium ever contradicts itself ACCORDING TO THE MAGISTERIUM.
So where is your proof????
Where is yours?
You mean, if the Magisterium ever contradicts itself ACCORDING TO THE MAGISTERIUM.
NO — according to SACRED TRADITION and SCRIPTURE — just as it was always the case throughout Christianity and its History!
NO — according to SACRED TRADITION and SCRIPTURE
Who decided it was authoritative?
Who decided it was authoritative?
Who do you think?
Who do you think?
For you, you’ve let men in pointy hats do your thinking for you.
For you, you’ve let men in pointy hats do your thinking for you.
Really???
How so???
By the way, do you accept all the books in the New Testament as Scripture or do you let such men tell you they are?
How so???
Do you submit to the authority of the Pope and the others with pointy hats?
do you accept all the books in the New Testament as Scripture or do you let such men tell you they are?
You mean the New Testament put together by men? Which group of men?
Bill:
You mean to say you accept all the books in the New Testament as inspired, inerrant, God-breathed Scripture, without any doubt in those who actually decided which of the books actually belonged to it in the 4th century?
What is your own criteria for accepting the books in the New Testament as being God-breathed, inspired and inerrant?
… or did you just rely on the judgment of a bunch of men in pointy hats who decided that in the 4th century????
You mean to say you accept all the books in the New Testament as inspired, inerrant, God-breathed Scripture, without any doubt in those who actually decided which of the books actually belonged to it in the 4th century?
Who said that?
What is your own criteria for accepting the books in the New Testament as being God-breathed, inspired and inerrant?
Why do I need to accept that?
Oh man, they’re multiplying…
Look guys, show me an instance where the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church contradict themselves and I’ll renounce my Catholic faith. For example in one place the Church says X and in another it says the opposite of X.
Or show me an instance where the infallible teachings of the Catholic proclaim a fallacy and I’ll renounce my Catholic faith. For example where the Church says 2+2=5.
If you’re really trying to help us see the light, learn about the Catholic Church. As St. Paul says, be all things to all men. Look at the Catholic Church through a Catholic’s perspective; since you already know the Truth you’ll certainly be able to find at least one contradiction or fallacy. Then you’ll be able to teach us in a language that we understand.
Another troll.
What is your own criteria for accepting the books in the New Testament as being God-breathed, inspired and inerrant?
Why do I need to accept that?
Bill:
You mean you don’t believe in Scripture?
Some men have pointy hats.
Others have pointy heads.
And many others apparently have no point at all.
I’ll throw in with the guys in the pointy hats.
You mean you don’t believe in Scripture?
The Bible describes a criminal dying on the cross with Jesus. Did he believe in Scripture?
I’ll throw in with the guys in the pointy hats.
Pointy hats fits men with pointy heads.
Bill:
What is ‘Scripture’?
I’ll throw in with the guys in the pointy hats.
Pointy hats fits men with pointy heads.
Ooh Ooh I know… The pointy headed men wearing pointy heads have no point at all!
Do I win a prize?
What is ‘Scripture’?
Did the criminal dying on the cross with Jesus have to know what ‘Scripture’ is?
Do I win a prize?
Nope, the correct answer was: The pointy headed men wearing pointy hats have no point at all!
I can’t even get my own sarcasm right.
Again, Bill, what’s ‘Scripture’?
Again, Bill, what’s ‘Scripture’?
Again, Esau, did the criminal dying on the cross with Jesus have to know what ‘Scripture’ is?
Bill:
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
Bill, do you believe the gospel? You know, that Jesus was the Son of God, died for our sins, rose again… all that?
If so, why?
Bill, do you believe the gospel?
As in “God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars.” ???
And just because I trust Rome’s Magisterium doesn’t mean I don’t think. You see fences that keep me stuck in, I see fences that keep falsehoods out. The fenced in areas are actually much larger and more open than they appear to outsiders. Having the fence in place actually leaves me an incredible amount of freedom to explore my pasture in safety
Brian, well said.
Bill, the criminal on the cross may or may not have known the which books made up the Jewish scriptures. But he knew the Word of God. He recognized the Lord and turned to him in repentance.
You seem to be saying that the same Jesus who founded His Church and died for us didn’t leave us any way to know what scripture is. No one has to know what scripture is if they’ve never been taught. But if they have been taught the truth and reject it, they will be held responsible for it.
You’re the one telling us that what the Catholic Church claims to be scripture is nothing more than a collection of books put together by men. This would mean that you have an idea of what scripture is (or isn’t), so you can’t claim to be in the group of people who have never been taught. If we are wrong and you are right, show us what is right. Are you here to teach us the truth or to riddle us to death?
Are you here to teach us the truth or to riddle us to death?
*ROFL*!!!!
Brian:
I nearly fell off my seat reading that line!!!
SDG,
Of course the document supports “inerrancy” but what it means by the term is not what evangelicalism means (or meant). For example, Ray Brown (who is rumored to have written that statement) said he believed in biblical inerrancy, but what he meant by it was a non-traditional view.
For example, Ratzinger and the PBC deny that Paul wrote the Pastorals. The Pastorals claim that Paul said and did certain things. If Paul didn’t write these letters (and if they date from years after Paul), then most likely Paul didn’t say or do most of them. Of course, they might be inspired in some way, but they are not inerrant as that term is understood.
Let me ask you this: do you think Raymond Brown’s view of the Bible comports with Catholic teaching? Do you think the head of the Congregation for the Faith should teach that Paul didn’t write the Pastorals, Genesis 1 is from the Babylonian Exile, that there are multiple Isaiahs?
Brian, well said.
Thanks Mary Kay. Sometimes I extend my metaphors too far, but that time the sheep theme worked.
Bill, the criminal on the cross may or may not have known the which books made up the Jewish scriptures. But he knew the Word of God.
Enough said.
You’re the one telling us that what the Catholic Church claims to be scripture is nothing more than a collection of books put together by men.
I’m not telling you Scripture is just a collection of books put together by men.
This would mean that you have an idea of what scripture is (or isn’t), so you can’t claim to be in the group of people who have never been taught.
The criminal on the cross was taught as well anyone.
Bill:
For the third time, what is ‘Scripture’?
First YZ, now Bill. Where do these clowns come from? It’s been pretty entertaining watching them flail about, barely able to form a coherent thought, let alone a valid syllogism.
“You’re the one telling us that what the Catholic Church claims to be scripture is nothing more than a collection of books put together by men.”
I’m not telling you Scripture is just a collection of books put together by men.
Right, but you seem to be saying that “what the Catholic Church claims to be” scripture is: Esau asked you, “do you accept all the books in the New Testament as Scripture or do you let such men tell you they are?” You answered, “You mean the New Testament put together by men? Which group of men? Posted by: Bill | May 7, 2007 2:07:35 PM”
One more time, if you’re here to show us the truth and save our souls – do it. No one was ever converted by being asked esoteric questions that lead nowhere. You’ve got us on the hook, we’re all listening, reel us in or let us go.
For the third time, what is ‘Scripture’?
For the third time, did the criminal dying on the cross with Jesus have to know what ‘Scripture’ is? Did he have to cite a definition?
Bill:
Are you, then, saying that Scripture is irrelevant and like YZ, one can believe in anything about Jesus and still be a ‘Christian’, so long as they have faith in him?
Cool!
Then, there are no such things as heretics.
Also, I could believe that Jesus had a lascivious love affair with Mary Magdalene from which several descendants came to be; not believe in such silly notions as the ‘Trinity’ or the ‘Resurrection’; and still be considered a ‘Christian’ and go to the wonderful land called ‘Heaven’!
Hooray!!!
The Canon of the Books of the Bible are the only writings that qualify as the inerrant word of God because they were the only documents that have a continuity of Truth. The books bear witness of each other through this continuity.
All later writings did not and do not have this continuity of Truth with the books of the Bible.
Have you ever heard of “The Entropy”? It is the scientific law of Fallen Creation. It states all things move from a state of Order to Complete Disorder.
The Evolution of Catholic Tradition is a classic example of entropy in action. Perfect order in the word existed when it was spoken by God the Father in his original commandments to Moses and then again when spoken by God the Son, and also via inspiration given to the Prophets and the Apostles. Entropy began when the Apostles died and began to set in with the first generation afterwards that did not walk with and saw Christ, when reading and studying the progression of Catholic doctrine you see the gradual departure and increase in departure from Truth over time. This increased as the Catholic Hierarchy ever more violated the Biblical requirements to remain within Truth.
The Reformation began by the recognition of this fact by Martin Luther.
What is so astonishing is that God clearly gives us a classic example of Theological Entropy in action via the Old Testament culminating in what Christ stated in Matthew 15. “Teaching as Doctrines the Commandments of Men” The Jews also fell into Theological Entropy in the same manner as the Catholic Church, this, the Catholic Church is blind to. When you depart from Biblical truth and enter into Theological Entropy the Holy Spirit departs from you, just as the Shekina glory departed from the Temple in Ancient Israel when the Children of Israel went into exile. So too has the Catholic Church went into exile because it has departed from Truth.
The Evolution of Catholic Tradition is a classic example of entropy in action. Perfect order in the word existed when it was spoken by God the Father in his original commandments to Moses and then again when spoken by God the Son, and also via inspiration given to the Prophets and the Apostles. Entropy began when the Apostles died and began to set in with the first generation afterwards that did not walk with and saw Christ, when reading and studying the progression of Catholic doctrine you see the gradual departure and increase in departure from Truth over time. This increased as the Catholic Hierarchy ever more violated the Biblical requirements to remain within Truth.
John:
Interesting to note that only within 500 years of the Reformation, 33,000 denominations came into being!
Now that is ENTROPY!
Before the Reformation, there was ONLY ONE CHURCH and a CONSISTENT set of beliefs, which was grounded in the CATHOLIC FAITH!
It is the scientific law of Fallen Creation. It states all things move from a state of Order to Complete Disorder.
If this is true then the New Testement is more disordered than the Old and the new theology started by Luther is more disordered than the old theology started by God in Christ.
Finally, if true then moving from a given point of total order there is a timeline to a point of total disorder when no one can be saved.
It’s just science.
Bill, you were asked if you believed in Scripture. Instead of answering, you asked about the thief crucified at the same time as Jesus. You’re in no position to get huffy that no one has answered your question because your question was a dodge from answering the question put to you: do you believe in Scripture.
Also, John, I would argue with regards to the transitional states evident in comparing the subsequent histories of the two, the thermodynamic as well as kinetically-favored products would be that which is found in the Catholic Faith.
Since the time of the early Christian church up to the time of the Reformation, for several years, there were a stability that found itself in the beliefs of the Catholic Faith, elements of which are consistently found in the early church.
The fact of the matter is that within the compartively short history of the Protestant church, in only 500 years, you can see the evident chaos that has reigned in the never-ending splitting of churches and denominations, which even Martin Luther became keenly aware of when he spoke of fools who interpreted one biblical verse in one way but then you had another interpreting it another way!
Good point Slowboy.
“As in “God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars.” ???”
Okay, that confirms that Bill is not anyone I need to bother with. I have toenails to clip and grass to watch grow.
Hey, Bill, what’s the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear, could ten-thousand angels dance on the head of a pin?
Esau_
“Before the Reformation, there was ONLY ONE CHURCH and a CONSISTENT set of beliefs, which was grounded in the CATHOLIC FAITH!”-
Did this “consistent Church” maintain that in order to belong to it , one MUST believe in the bodily assumption of Mary back then?.
Tim J.
You missed the important question:
What is the sound of one angel dancing on the head of a pin in a forest?
Where in early church history did they observe any beliefs even remotely reminiscient of the Protestant faith????
Even J. N. D. Kelly admitted:
“…the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier” (Early Christian Doctrines, 196).
Justin Martyr in 150 A.D. even wrote:
“And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed in the bath for the forgiveness of sins and to regeneration, and who so lives as Christ has directed. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
(First Apology, 1:62)
Hmmm… sounds ‘Catholic’ to me!
I mean, didn’t Paul even say:
1 Cor 11:27
27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Cor 11:26
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
Oh yeah, and about the people in pointy hats —
Irenaeus wrote about 180 A.D.:
“But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles. . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition”
(Against Heresies 3.1.2)
Even St. Athanasius said:
“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian”
(Ad Serapion 1,28)
Did not Paul even write:
1 Tm 3:15:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Hmmm… again, sounds ‘Catholic’ to me!
John: Who codified the canon of Scripture? When did this occur?
Esau_
“Before the Reformation, there was ONLY ONE CHURCH and a CONSISTENT set of beliefs, which was grounded in the CATHOLIC FAITH!”-
Did this “consistent Church” maintain that in order to belong to it , one MUST believe in the bodily assumption of Mary back then?.
Erick, I pretty much gave you the standard Catholic answer earlier in this thread. Just substite the Assumption for the Immaculate Conception:
“Right, but in the same way that science can’t make something true just by declaring it, neither can the Church. The Church doesn’t make any new truths. It just affirms truths that have always existed. For example, the Immaculate Conception didn’t become true when the Church made it dogma. It always was true, the Church just reached the point where it understood it well enough to affirm it. The Magisterium isn’t infallible because the Church says so, it’s infallible because it’s the Truth guaranteed as such by the Holy Spirit.”
Did gravity not exist before Newton? Did the New World not exist before Columbus (or whoever you want to say first discovered it)?
“Did this “consistent Church” maintain that in order to belong to it , one MUST believe in the bodily assumption of Mary back then?.”
Actually, at that time they didn’t need to insist on the point, because everyone believed it, anyway… on tradition. It was well known and accepted.
“For the third time, did the criminal dying on the cross with Jesus have to know what ‘Scripture’ is? Did he have to cite a definition?”
You’re not hanging from a cross, are you? If so, then by all means continue to avoid the question. If you’re not, then kindly answer the question, or else quit wasting your and everybody else’s time and find a game a computer solitaire to play or something.
When you define Scripture, then and only then will we explain to you whether or not the thief on the cross needed to know what Scripture is in order to be saved.
Ball’s in your court. Play or concede the game.
Here is a useful link with patristic comments on Mary’s bodily assumption;
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/assumed.htm
Bill, you were asked if you believed in Scripture. Instead of answering, you asked about the thief crucified at the same time as Jesus. You’re in no position to get huffy that no one has answered your question because your question was a dodge from answering the question put to you: do you believe in Scripture.
I’m not huffy Mary Kay. I’m not looking for answers, even if it looks to you like I’m asking them. If you’re still looking for an answer, you simply do not understand your own question. First understand what you ask, then you will not have a question.
First understand what you ask, then you will not have a question.
If you possess no understanding of what you are asking, why then are you asking of something you have no understanding?
Ask yourself.
First understand what you ask, then you will not have a question.
Very good. If you forget, just remember.
Are you here to teach us the truth or to riddle us to death?
First understand what you ask, then you will not have a question.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam posit materiari?
Bill sez;
“I’m rubber, you’re glue… whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you…”
I’m not huffy Mary Kay.
It was more a reference to your “for the third time…”
I’m not looking for answers
Then what’s your purpose in posting here?
even if it looks to you like I’m asking them.
Don’t presume to know what I’m thinking. You don’t.
If you’re still looking for an answer
Another presumption on your part.
…you simply do not understand your own question. First understand what you ask, then you will not have a question.
Bill, whenever I run into this sort of double talk, it is inevitably from someone trying to make themselves bigger than they are. I’ve known people brilliant in their field, people very wise, people very holy. Without exception, they communicate in simple, straightforward words.
Nobody is fooled by your attempt to appear above it all. Get real and participate in an honest and genuine discussion.
Don’t presume to know what I’m thinking. You don’t.
Says Mary Kay to her mirror.
2 + 2 = 4
The above written statement is inerrant.
Only in base 10
Ah, a genuine reaction. That’s a start.
As it turns out, I’m not presuming what you’re thinking. I have no way of knowing what you’re thinking because whatever you’re thinking is hidden behind obtuseness.
I was simply saying that the people I’ve known who were at the top of their field has the common characteristic of wanting the other person to understand what they were saying, so they used simple, straightforward language.
You, having free choice, can be as obtuse as you want here, but don’t expect much of a response.
“Actually, at that time they didn’t need to insist on the point, because everyone believed it, …”
Care to cite a first century Patristic source on the bodily assumption of Mary being a NECESSARY dogma of the “one true church” back then?
After all if “they” did not need to “insist” on this , then it must have been the norm !.
Says Mary Kay to her mirror.
Yeah — Mary Kay might have more success in talking to an inanimate object instead of you.
Care to cite a first century Patristic source on the bodily assumption of Mary being a NECESSARY dogma of the “one true church” back then?
After all if “they” did not need to “insist” on this , then it must have been the norm !.
Why ask Anon with no name that???
Besides, care to cite a first century Patristic source on your Protestant beliefs?
After all if “they” did not need to “insist” on this , then it must have been the norm!.
But, as the evidence proves — even from Protestant sources (imagine that!), the early Church was more ‘Catholic’ than Protestant!
erick, dogmas are often not defined until they are challenged. I gave you a link to scads of Church Fathers on the subject. These are not statements of required dogma, they are indications of what people actually believed.
You give ME a quote that indicates IN ANY WAY that this belief – Mary’s assumption – was anything but common. Find me a Church Father that questions it.
Well, Jeb, I offered you the chance to prove me wrong and admit your error, and you passed. Can’t say I’m surprised. You weren’t wrong about Spong supporting the Trinity even though your source quotes Spong as saying “I could never say God is a Trinity,” you weren’t wrong about, well, any of the scads of bizarro things you said about the “Reflection” document, and now once again you aren’t wrong about the PBC agreeing with Fundamentalists on inerrancy even though your source says “Fundamentalists are right to insist on inerrancy.” Just for the sake of completeness, perhaps you can affirm once again that you aren’t wrong about the Catholic Church teaching that infallible documents are the word of God, even though the Catholic Church actually teaches otherwise.
However, you are still wrong, for two reasons.
First, although you appeal to “what evangelicalism means (or meant)” by inerrancy, the ETS statement of faith simply says “inerrant in the autographs,” and lets it go at that.
And secondly, the PBC document you cite — your source — doesn’t merely “support inerrancy,” as you dismissively say. It specifically says that “Fundamentalism is right” to insist on inerrancy. That’s a claim to substantial agreement, not just on a word, but on the meaning of the term, if not every application or consequence drawn from it.
If the PBC felt that the meaning of the word “inerrancy” as used by Fundamentalists were essentially inapplicable, they would not have said “Fundamentalists are right” to insist on it. This is not the way you talk about people who happen to use the same word as you but mean something substantially different by it.
By “inerrancy” we understand and agree on essentially the same concept — scripture is without error. The ETS statement of faith doesn’t go further than this, and there is no reason why a Catholic may not accord with this statement of faith.
As an inerrantist, I believe that what is asserted by the sacred author is asserted by the Holy Spirit, as per Dei Verbum. When you ask me about whether the book of Isaiah consists of one, two or three different compositions, AFAICT you are asking me a question to which no assertion of any sacred writer is addressed. If I am persuaded that it is an assertion of sacred scripture that the book of Isaiah has a single human author, I will believe it. Otherwise I don’t see how the doctrine of inerrancy enters into the question.
I’m likewise unsure how the question of whatever historical context or sources may have contributed to the development of Genesis 1 impacts on the issue of inerrancy. The non-Pauline authorship of the Pastorals theory is a stickier wicket; in his new book about Jesus B16 wrote “Everyone is free to disagree with me,” and in that spirit I would cheerfully disagree with his opinions on the question of the authorship of the Pastorals (which, however, do not amount to an endorsement of error in the scriptures by Ratzinger).
My reasons, though, would be based in literary principles, not an abstract appeal to inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy by itself tells us nothing of the import of scripture until we have ascertained what the human author meant to assert, and thus what is asserted by the Holy Spirit. To do that, we need to ask critical questions — questions about genre, literary conventions, historical contexts, and so forth. That is what Fundamentalism has historically failed to do.
Erick:
You never responded to my earlier question: is Truth relative?
TimJ—
You are at a dead end.
In order to prove the statement made above that Rome is “consistent”— You would need to come up with 1st century evidence of a doctrine that was defined as NECESSARY many centuries later.
You can’t.
So now let’s resort to counter-attack with my own arguments.
How about coming up with some of your own?.
Kathleen-
You need to re-read my posts—
I did answer—
No. It is absolute!
TimJ—
You are at a dead end.
In order to prove the statement made above that Rome is “consistent”— You would need to come up with 1st century evidence of a doctrine that was defined as NECESSARY many centuries later.
You can’t.
So now let’s resort to counter-attack with my own arguments.
How about coming up with some of your own?.
erick:
You still haven’t provided me with evidence that the early church actually believed what Protestants believe!
Are you, then, saying that Scripture is irrelevant and like YZ, one can believe in anything about Jesus and still be a ‘Christian’, so long as they have faith in him?
Has YZ actually expressed such a statement?
I couldn’t say that YZ is not an atheist based on the posts here.
Esau-
You made a statement about the supposed “consistency” of Rome.
I showed this is not true-(at least in one instance).
Now you ask for my proof that the early church believed what Protestants believe.
First let me say that unlike you guys I don’t hold to Protestantism as the all seeing “mother” ,”keeper” or infallible definer of my faith.
So needless to say I would never make such a statement (ie. the historic consistency of Protestantism)- to “prove” anything, being that I do not fear to recognize Protestantism’s shortfalls!.
You – on the other hand cannot make such a statement about Rome!.
Comprende?.
Peter is infallible because THE BIBLE SAYS SO! If you don’t believe that, it means that you really don’t believe in the infallibility of the Bible!
Question: Which came first, the Bible (New Testament) or the Church? If the Church came first, does that mean that those who died before the bible (like St Stephen and St James the brother of John) are not saved? In fact, all the apostles died before the compilation of the Bible which was done in the 4th century!
I think YZ is an agnostic actually. Very determinate about not being able to know anything, though he’s ok with choosing to believe if you don’t claim you actually know it’s true.
So he might be a Christian-agnostic-combo, but I still think he’s more agnostic than anything else.
O.k. Erick. Thanks, I read your response.
You don’t think Truth is relative, so how do you determine what is True?
I beg your forgiveness, YK answered and I mistoook him for you because this thread is very long!!
Thanks
K
“Very good. If you forget, just remember.”
“First understand what you ask, then you will not have a question.”
Sounds an awful like quotes from “The Matrix”.
Kathleen-
I would say that (loosely ) any statement and / or accion or symbol that corresponds to its referent.
It MUST correspond to reality.
How do I determine truth?—
Laws of logic , philosophy, epistemology-(coherence and correspondence).
There really is a lot more to it— but anyhow, I hope this satisfies !.
Sounds an awful like quotes from “The Matrix”.
Please just listen. I know why you’re here. I know what you’ve been doing… why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer.
You’re looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn’t really looking for him. I was looking for an answer.
It’s the question that drives us. It’s the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.
“Save the CHEERLEADER, Save the WORLD!”
SDG,
If you read the PBC statement, it says that fundemantalists are right to insist in inerrancy, but then goes to critique the fundamentalist view of inerancy (or what it takes to be the view) for six paragraphs. For example:
“In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.”
It then concludes by saying that fundamentalism is “dangerous.”
All of this is hardly a ringing endorsement of a conservative approach to the Bible.
As I pointed out Raymond Brown claimed to support inerrancy, but by it meant “all Scripture is inerrant to the extent that it serves the purpose God intended it . . . for the sake of our salvation.” (Intro to NT, p. 31.) He claimed this was taught by Vatican II. He also believed there were theological and historical errors in the Bible. (Critical Meaning of the Bible.) He says Vatican II rejects a view of inerrancy “similar to” that taught by fundamentalism. (p. 17)
Brown was a member of the PBC at the time the document came out. So far as I know, everyone on the PBC in recent years (Fitzmyer, Senior, Wainsbrough, etc.) holds views similar to Brown’s.
Are you saying that Brown’s view of the Bible is contrary to the Church’s? Until such time as the pope replaces the liberals on the PBC with conservatives, I believe I am fully entitled to say that the contemporary Catholic approach to inerrancy is as Brown describes it.
As far as Ratzinger goes, if he believes the Pastorals are post-Paul, then he believes the Bible contains historical errors. He doesn’t believe that Paul wrote Titus as the book claims; and probably doubts that Paul left Titus on Crete, that he told him to appoint elders, etc. So his view of inerrancy is closer to that taught by Brown than by that held by conservative Catholics or Protetants.
“Until such time as the pope replaces the liberals on the PBC with conservatives, I believe I am fully entitled to say that the contemporary Catholic approach to inerrancy is as Brown describes it.”
No, you would be entitled to say that “A” contemporary Catholic approach to inerrancy is as Brown describes it. Quite a few Catholics think Brown, Fitzmyer, et al., were and are way off base about biblical inerrancy.
As for what the Pope privately may or may not believe about the authorship of some of St. Paul’s writings, so long as he does not formally teach his theological opinions as Church doctrine, it’s got nothing to do with what “the” Catholic approach to inerrancy is. For that, you’ve got to go to official conciliar and papal documents, and the Church has not officially made any statements on the subject of biblical inerrancy since Dei Verbum, which merely summarised and endorsed the doctrine of Trent, Vatican I, Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus, and Divino Afflante Spiritu. Study papers from groups of papal advisors don’t count.
Jordan,
If Paul VI, JPII & Benedict put conservatives on the PBC then you would have a point. But to the best of my knowledge, only people who take the Brownian approach are made members. (For example, Wainsbrough says the opening chapters of Genesis contain no more history than Little Red Riding Hood. He says Ratzinger would sit on on PBC meetings.)
Ratzinger expressed his views when he headed the Congregation for the Faith, so again I’ll assume he believed his views were in accord with the documents you mentioned.
And rightly so. Fundamentalism represents a warped view of the Bible, as much so as modernism, but in the opposite direction.
Modernism approaches scripture as the words of men, neglecting its dimension as the word of God, including its inspired and authoritative character and its inerrancy. In its extreme form, modernism treats the Bible as no more important or meaningful than any other book, and even in less extreme forms it fails to appreciate the full weight of the authority of scripture in all its assertions.
Fundamentalism does the opposite, approaching scripture as the word of God but neglecting its dimension as the words of men, including its dependence on literary form and convention and historical and cultural context. In its extreme form, Fundamentalism effectively embraces a verbal dictation theory of inspiration, and even in less extreme forms it fails to appreciate the essentially literary character of the Bible and the necessity of reading it as we would other books of the same period and place.
In other words, Fundamentalism and modernism are related to one another as Arianism and Docetism, or Pelagianism and extreme Calvinism, or angelism and materialism, as any other ordered pair of heresies, each of which affirms the truth denied by the other and denies the truth affirmed by the other.
Only Catholicism integrates all the fragmented truths of all these heresies into the integral and whole (catholic) faith. And, unsurprisingly, both errors accuse orthodox Catholicism of compromising the bit of truth that they affirm, just as non-Trinitiarians accuse Catholics of compromising monotheism and Calvinists accuse Catholics of being Pelagians, etc., etc. When you have a fragmentary worldview that pits one bit of truth against another, the fullness of truth looks dangerously unbalanced and compromised.
Scripture is the word of God in the words of men. Just as the Son of God became a son of man like other men in all respects except sin, so the word of God became words of men like other human words in all respects except error.
This means that scripture must be approached and understood as human literature, in every respect like other human literature, with full appreciation for applicable literary forms, conventions, historical and cultural context, and so forth.
We must seek to understand the sacred writers just as we would any other writers; the great difference is that what we correctly discern them as asserting, we may with confidence ascribe to the Holy Spirit, for as Dei Verbum says what is asserted by the human author is asserted by the Holy Spirit. This is the correct approach to inerrancy, and it requires us to seek to ascertain what was intended by the human author as the key to the meaning of the text.
This process is atrophied or missing entirely in Fundamentalist exegesis, which tends to approach the Bible as if every word were dictated by God. Nearly everyone can get so far as recognizing that when Jesus says “I am the door” or “There was a certain man who had two sons,” these are not statements of literal historical fact, that Jesus is using the forms of metaphor and parable, respectively. So far so good.
Yet for some reason both Genesis 1 and the passion narratives are equally understood as literal historical accounts, even though the passion narratives reflect human eyewitness testimony written within a few decades of the events described, whereas Genesis 1 obviously does not reflect human eyewitness testimony and was written incalculably after the events described, and even though the form of the passion narratives is that of contemporary history whereas the form of Genesis 1 is poetic and antiphonal in structure.
So the Catholic approach to how to understand scripture is different from the Fundamentalist approach, significantly so. However, just as Trinitarians agree with non-Trinitiarian monotheists regarding the oneness of God, Catholics agree with Fundamentalists regarding the inerrancy of scripture. Like it or not, accept it or not, believe it or not, we have real and substantial agreement on this point, and for you to deny it is exactly like a JW or a Muslim saying that you aren’t a true monotheist because you believe in the Trinity.
The Catholic faith is defined by teaching documents, not by pragmatic decisions such as appointments to commissions. Since Dei Verbum says that what is asserted by the sacred writers is asserted by the Holy Spirit, you are not entitled to consider something different from that Catholic teaching unless you have a contrary magisterial statement.
Jeb, when drawing conclusions about what other people believe or don’t believe, you need to exercise a little more humility and a little more charity. You might think that Ratzinger’s views regarding the non-Pauline authorship of the Pastorals means that they contain historical errors; it doesn’t follow that Ratzinger believes this.
“TimJ—
You are at a dead end.”
No, YOU can’t provide a shred of evidence to counter the Church Fathers I provided before, but insist on moving the goal post… demanding a first century dogmatic statement of the Assumption of Mary, as if the Church has to jump through your hoops. If you want to show this belief is INconsistent with the Church Fathers, then show me some contrary evidence comparable to what I provided. Just one.
“In order to prove the statement made above that Rome is “consistent”— You would need to come up with 1st century evidence of a doctrine that was defined as NECESSARY many centuries later.”
No, not really. All that is needed for any reasonable person is evidence that the belief was consistently held. In other words, if second or third century sources – all the earliest sources we have on the subject, actually – maintain that such was the common belief since the earliest days of the Church, and there is NO evidence AT ALL to the contrary, then there is no reason to doubt their veracity. The earliest evidence we have speaks of the Assumption as a *well established* tradition in the Church.
What you are asking for is a level of historical evidence that would be impossible to provide… not evidence of consistency, but consistent evidence… written proof that the Church made this an official teaching on Day One, Day Two, etc…
Do you maintain that oral records are not records, or that common knowledge is not knowledge, until written down?
The burden of proof is on you to show that this teaching is INconsistent.
“/Following is work, YZ. You’re no real protestant Christian! You propose I can work my way to heaven by following Jesus! You’re no better than those romanish papists! Demon be gone!!!
Its faith alone folks. Faith in…something/
I actually agree with that, It is faith alone. You cannot work your way to heaven. ”
So you propose that we can be saved by having faith and following Jesus, but you also agree that following Jesus is work and has no bearing on our salvation?
In other words, you’ve abandoned the philosophies of men to the point of destroying the principal of non-contradiction?
You know no one takes you seriously, right?
TimJ-
You make no sense!.
Why would you not be able to provide proof of a teaching you hold has been the consistent teaching of Rome in the 1st century?.
All I’m doing is telling YOU to put your money where your mouth is!!!— .
You can’t.
Your argument about the impossibility of finding a 1st century argument that affirms this doctrine is quite interesting.
Erick, can you find a first century document that says E = mc^2?
Does that make the equation any less true?
Tim J. was saying that you will find evidence that there has always been a pious tradition (small ‘t’) of the Assumption and that you will not find evidence against it from the Church Fathers. You’re asking for evidence that the Assumption was infallibly defined as doctrine before it was infallibly defined as doctrine. That’s a logical impossibility.
I have provided ample evidence which shows that belief in the Assumption of Mary was consisitently held in the early Church. ALL the earliest written evidence we have indicates this belief was *well established*. On the other hand, you can provide NO (zero) evidence to the contrary.
I don’t have to provide a first century written document simply because you insist on it. Admit it, no amount of evidence would convince you.
There is ample written evidence of an *established* oral tradition… but I know you Prots don’t put your faith in traditions (except your own).
I also mark, erick, how disingenuous it is to look at all the written evidence, take note of the earliest date, and then insist on a piece of written evidence that you KNOW doesn’t exist.
If I were to (hypothetically) provide you with a written source from the year 90, what’s to prevent you from then carping about the mysterious 20 year “gap” in the evidence? “Why wasn’t there some earlier record? Where’s the consistency?”.
The evidence is more than sufficient for any UNBIASED person really interested in looking at it.
Brian–
?.
A similar kind of “argument from silence” has been used by some liberal Bible critics to undermine the dogma of the Virgin Birth, beginning with, “Well, Paul makes no mention of the Virgin Birth, so that casts doubt on its hitorical reliability…”
Aside from the biblical accounts, I can’t find any written document before the third century that affirms the Virgin Birth. Is that inconsistent? There ARE those – based on this “lack of evidence” – who maintain that the gospel birth narratives have been misinterpreted and that the Virgin Birth was a lter invention.
Sorry for spelling in that last post…
That should be;
“historical”
and
“later invention”.
TimJ-
You are really scraping the bottom on this one!!!– comparing my argument with a liberal view of higher criticism !!!!……very amusing!
Erick, with a little googling I found this page: Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I’m sure Tim or someone can provide better evidence than me, I don’t know much about the Church Fathers.
You started this line of questioning by asking: “Did this “consistent Church” maintain that in order to belong to it , one MUST believe in the bodily assumption of Mary back then?.” The short answer is no, the Assumption wasn’t infallibly understood until 1950. What’s your point? Was it required that all physicists believe that E=mc^2 before 1905?
“comparing my argument with a liberal view of higher criticism !!!!……very amusing!”
I was pointing out that your method of argument is the same as theirs, in this instance. I expect that in the case of the Virgin Birth you would not accept that the argument from silence is valid, but you have been using the same method yourself.
The fact that no one made a big deal *in print* about the Virgin Birth for a couple of centuries has no bearing on A) whether the teaching is true, and B) whether it was consistently held as true in the early Church. All the evidence *that we have* indicates that it was an established tradition.
The same holds for the bodily assumption of Mary.
Brian, that’s the same link I posted earlier. But thanks, anyway!
“But to the best of my knowledge, only people who take the Brownian approach are made members.”
Well, we have to put them somewhere. At least when we corrall them all into a few commissions and associations, we can keep an eye on them betteer. 😉
Sorry about that, Tim.
Actually, I have now found some earlier (second century) references to the Virgin Birth. Of course, these also provide evidence for the veneration of Mary in the early Church, so some may see them as “tainted” sources. 🙂
Sorry, here’s the URL, courtesy of Scoot Hahn’s “St. Paul Center”;
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/venerate.htm
That’s “Scott” Hahn…
Though I understand that President Bush calls him “Scoot”…
TimJ
“The same holds for the bodily assumption of Mary.”.
No it does not—-The Virgin Birth is BIBLICAL— the other is not!—-they are not the same!.
That’s not the point. We were talking about the evidence for a consistently held tradition in the early Church.
The liberal scholars maintain – through an argument from silence – that there was no such tradition for the Virgin Birth in the earliest days of the Church. It is an invalid argument.
I know this sounds stupid, but the Assumption is not not biblical. So you can’t rule it out purely on the basis that it’s not in the bible.
My point being that it is invalid to argue;
“There is no first century written document confirming a tradition of “X” in the early Church, therefore there was no such tradition”.
It’s bogus reasoning.
“Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” ~Gen. 5:24
“and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-pe’or; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day.” ~ Deut. 34:6
“But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses…” ~ Jude 9a
“And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli’jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” ~2 Kgs. 2:11
Golly, Barbara! If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were trying to establish a Biblical pattern of bodily assumption.
I will give someone else a chance—-
It’s been fun guys!….
Adieu.
Was it something I said? 😀
Be nice, Erick makes his arguments logically and with a purpose unlike the trolls from yesterday. I certainly couldn’t go into a Protestant blog and convince anyone to accept the Assumption. I admire his courage and conviction.
erick,
Dr. Beckwith’s (president of the Evangelical Theological Society) explanation of the reasons for his conversion indicate that the witness of the Early Church’s documentation was key:
“…in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries.”
Hey, I’ll take an impassioned Evangelical over a pseudo/neo-gnostic any day. For that matter, I’d rather debate an honest atheist or pagan than the “what’s the sound of one hand clapping” bozos.
At least erick believes in the same Jesus I do, even if he thinks I’m going to hell (for some reason).
At any rate, he will engage in a bit of back-and-forth.
Several years ago, I had just begun reading vol. I of Jurgens’ “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, a collection of the writings of the early Church Fathers, when I heard Tim Staples say that, when he was a Protestant, he heard Jimmy Swaggart challenge Catholics to read the early Fathers. Staples did the same, and found that they were Catholic. That began his journey into the Church. I went back to the beginning of the book and began highlighting the passages that were specifically Catholic. In the 3 volumes, I used up 3 highlighters. If one wishes to remain Protestant, he should not read the early Church Fathers, especially St. Irenaeus and St. Cyprian of Carthage.
TimJ—
No I do not believe you are going to Hell— Only The Lord knows that!….
By the way….same to ya’…I rather talk to you guys than most people in my church!.
erick, God bless you, brother, and keep in mind that I can get as impassioned as anyone, and that can make me trigger happy, at times.
Shalom.
Come on, people.
At the very least, erick is genuine and honest — I’ve got to give him that.
He admitted openly:
…being that I do not fear to recognize Protestantism’s shortfalls!.
Also, he said:
No I do not believe you are going to Hell— Only The Lord knows that!….
This is NOT somebody who is insincere in his engagement with us.
On the contrary, it would seem that he is truly seeking the answers.
erick is quite unlike the anti-Catholic Protestant who would just as easily said that Protestants have no shortfalls whatsoever since they’re just going back to how Christianity originally was — away from the corruption of Rome and before the time Rome had wickedly paganized Christianity into something grotesque and awful, and that ALL Catholics are going to hell.
I give erick kudos for, at least, giving us a chance to be heard, even if only slightly.
I think that’s pretty much what everyone was saying, Esau.
I thought I remembered from earlier posts erick making noises like we were all following the Pope into eternal perdition, but I could be mistaken.
I’m GLAD he doesn’t think that Catholics are going to hell.
Nope— wasn’t me!.
It was posted:
“erick,
Dr. Beckwith’s (president of the Evangelical Theological Society) explanation of the reasons for his conversion indicate that the witness of the Early Church’s documentation was key”
So therefore is it safe to say that the reforms of Vatican II to be more in line with the Protestants has done nothing and it was actually the tried and true teachings of the early church that has converted Mr Beckwith?
What a concept-church tradition and teachings and not reform to appease the masses!
I’d like to chime in on something that may be bothering Erick but hasn’t really come up into the discussion directly. The question is “How can the Catholic Church require someone to believe something that is not defended by Scripture?”
From this point of view, it doesn’t matter if the Assumption is true or not, or even if it was believed by the early church. From a non-Catholic point of view, this seems to conflict with 2 Timothy 3:14, which tells us that Scripture is sufficient for saving faith.
The Catholic answer is that belief in the Assumption does not directly affect one’s salvation in any way, but that the Holy Spirit has guided the Catholic Church into true knowledge of the Assumption. So, I think for the purposes of Catholic/non-Catholic discussion, this question inevitably leads back into two more fundamental issues: a hierarchy of truths and the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church.
I apologize if I’m way off track here.
2 Timothy 3:14, which tells us that Scripture is sufficient for saving faith.
Kelson,
You do know that ‘Scripture’ at that time was not our Christian bible (since it didn’t even exist at that time), but that it would’ve more so applied to Jewish Scripture, right???
I agree that it would have applied primarily to the Old Testament, but I think that it can validly be applied to the New Testament in a secondary sense, even though most of the New Testament hadn’t been written yet.
I think Kelson was asking someone to answer the question more than he was challenging the Catholic Church’s ability to do so. It’s a good topic to explore. Unfortunately, I think it’s a bit nuanced for me to tackle. Any takers?
Uh, I second Esau here, but isn’t it 2 Tim 3:16. And the word I get isn’t “sufficient” but “useful.”
Uh, I second Esau here, but isn’t it 2 Tim 3:16. And the word I get isn’t “sufficient” but “useful.”
Thanks, Jared.
And I agree with you as well — it’s “useful” and not “sufficient”; although I know some folks who would just as easily render it as “sufficient” in order to draw an albeit fallacious conclusion.
Also, I could never understand why there are those folks — and not just Protestants but Catholics, too — who seem to think that the bible was already complete and available to the public at the time of these writings and that when ‘Scripture’ is mentioned, the New Testament writers must’ve been referring to our Scriptures; that is, the ‘bible’.
However, the Christian bible — our ‘Scripture’ — didn’t come about until several centuries later!
I’d like to chime in on something that may be bothering Erick but hasn’t really come up into the discussion directly. The question is “How can the Catholic Church require someone to believe something that is not defended by Scripture?”
Suppose you are back in the 4th century and you are making the cannon of scripture. You have all the current books of the bible except for the Gospel of John. That is enough for salvation. Why add to it? Well, the Gospel of John will bless people’s walk with the Lord. It should be part of scripture even if you can be saved without it.
But why require it? Well, if someone chooses to disbelieve the Gospel of John it has implications. It opens all of scripture to doubt. It really leaves a big hole in the foundations of the faith.
It is the same thing with the assumption. It was proclaimed to bless the church with a deeper understanding of the mystery of salvation. Once it is proclaimed it causes a problem for those who choose to deny it. To deny it means you deny the doctrine of infallibility proclaimed by the first Vatican council. To deny one council means you doubt them all. That means you doubt the scriptures. Basically the whole faith comes unravelled. So we are required to beleive it so our faith will continue to have a rationally coherent foundation.
All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ. How long has Christ been around?
“How can the Catholic Church require someone to believe something that is not defended by Scripture?”
From my Catholic mindset I see the Church as the arbiter of Truth, if She knows the the Truth it’s Her duty to preach it. That’s why I think the Church must define such doctrine when it’s certain of the Truth. But from many Protestant viewpoints, it’s not necessarily the church’s job to act in this way. They see the church overstepping it’s bounds in this type of situation. I think this difference in the church/belief paradigm is what Kolson was trying to point out.
SDG,
Assume the child of a Catholic parent returns from school and says his religion teacher taught him that Jesus wasn’t born in Bethehem, there were no Magi, there was no flight to Egypt, and Luke got the census wrong. The child reports that the teacher said he believed in biblical inerrancy, but the writers did not intend to teach these events as historically true.
What documents should a Catholic parent consult to find if these positions are contrary to Catholic teaching? Do you believe these positions contradict Catholic teaching?
Thanks, Brian.
You hit the nail on the head. Reading the discussion, I felt like Erick wasn’t looking so much concerned about whether the doctrine of the Assumption was true or not, but about what sort of precedent there was for defining it as an infallible doctrine.
I would begin with Dei Verbum‘s declaration, taken up in the CCC (126), that “The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, ‘whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.'”
I would further point out notable references to the details of the infancy narratives in papal documents, addresses, homilies and so forth. For instance, JP2’s 1998 Bull of Indiction for the 2000 Jubilee tells us that “The birth of Jesus at Bethlehem is not an event which can be consigned to the past.”
More exhaustively, JP2’s 1989 Apostolic Exhortation Redemptoris Custos, which is devoted to the person and mission of St. Joseph, dwells at length on the events in the infancy narratives, the historicity of which is taken for granted — in fact, the census is referred to as a “historical fact,” and St. Joseph is described as an “eyewitness” to the birth in Bethlehem as well as the adoration of the shepherds and magi, etc.
If I were the parent in question, I would rip the teacher up one side and down the other for introducing children to controversial methodological skepticism rather than doing their job, which is instructing children in their catechism and the faith of the Church, not introducing them to the academic theories of critical scholars, or undermining the prerogatives of parents as primary educators to bring up their children in a more traditional approach to scripture, one that is not at odds with the tenor of tradition and that (IMO) reflects defective critical presuppositions.
Having said all that, I would stop short of declaring the skeptical opinions you mention to be formal heresy or even strict dissent. The Church has not dogmatically defined exegetical parameters for every chapter in the Bible — in fact, the Church has defined comparatively little in this regard — and scholarship has significant latitude to consider different possibilities when analyzing the biblical data.
However, the Church reserves the ultimate right to judge all such theories — and, given the Church’s “unhesitating affirmation of the historicity of the Gospels,” I think it’s entirely reasonable to consider the skeptical approach to the infancy narratives to be dubious at best, and certainly not characteristic of “the Catholic approach to scripture.”
Let’s see what B16 has to say in Jesus of Nazareth (and its projected sequels)!
Jeb,
Go here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
type “Bethlehem”.
Jeb,
I heard a great author by the name of Ratzinger who’s about to release a book on that very topic:
“Whoever reads a few of these reconstructions can see immediately that they are more photographs of the authors and their ideals than a real questioning of an image that has become confused. Meanwhile, mistrust was growing toward these images of Jesus, and the figure itself of Jesus was ever more removed from us.
All these attempts have left in their wake, as common denominator, the impression that we know very little about Jesus, and that only later faith in his divinity has formed his image. Meanwhile, this image has been penetrating profoundly in the common consciousness of Christianity. Such a situation is tragic for the faith, because it makes its authentic point of reference uncertain: intimate friendship with Jesus, from whom everything depends, is debated and runs the risk of becoming useless. […]
I have felt the need to give readers these indications of a methodological character so that they can determine the path of my interpretation of the figure of Jesus in the New Testament.
With reference to my interpretation of Jesus, this means first of all that I trust the Gospels.
Of course I take as a given all that the Council and modern exegesis say about the literary genres, the intention of their affirmations, on the communal context of the Gospels and its words in this living context. Accepting all this in the measure that was possible to me, I wished to present the Jesus of the Gospels as the true Jesus, as the “historical Jesus” in the true sense of the expression. ” (EXCERPT)
Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger
http://www.scborromeo.org — my alma mater!
I did the search, and found one passage I had already run across, but also one I hadn’t, one that does strongly affirm the historical birth of Jesus at Bethlehem as an article of Catholic faith:
Good call, JohnD.
So now we know what a Catholic parent could do to find out what the Catholic Church teaches. What would a Protestant parent do? Just keep asking someone until they find the answer they like?
What would a Protestant parent do? Just keep asking someone until they find the answer they like?
Maybe read the Bible?
Maybe read the Bible?
After doing that, which interpretation would you follow????
As even Martin Luther stated, “There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”
After doing that, which interpretation would you follow????
The one the Protestant believes is right.
SDG & JohnD,
Raymond Brown points out that church documents written in the “pre-critical” phase should not be construed as teaching a certain view of Scripture. He gives the example of Trent saying that NT Bible records Jesus instituting the seven sacraments. Catholics are not obligated to believe that Jesus literally did this, only that it was a valid interpretation of what Jesus’ intended.
Brown says something similar about contemporary church documents as well. A “literal” and “non-critical” exegesis of church documents is a form of fundamentalism.
So read “critically,” I don’t see how the documents mentioned require Catholics to accept the literal accuracy of the infancy narrratives.
The one the Protestant believes is right.
The should say “The 60,000 different interpretations believed by the Protestants are right, so long as they don’t agree with those Romans,” eh, Rick?
Jeb, all of the documents we’ve cited are solidly “post-critical,” so whatever the validity of Brown’s point, it doesn’t apply.
The should say “The 60,000 different interpretations believed by the Protestants are right, so long as they don’t agree with those Romans,” eh, Rick?
Who says “those Romans” agree among themselves? Even if I read the Bible pushed by the USCCB, for example, the scholarly notes on the Luke census say “there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful… Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius.”
Rick,
My point was not so much that Protestant parents can’t find the right answer. They can. But to suggest that it is harder for a Catholic parent to find the right answer — as Jeb has — is downright disingenuous.
Say what you will about the Catholic Church, but what it teaches is laid out there for all who have eyes to see (and criticize).
“Do any of you know where Francis Beckwith and Roger Beckwith (a Reformed theologian) are related in any way?”
I know. There is no relation.
Posted by: Francis Beckwith | May 6, 2007 10:03:56 PM
[jj] Thanks, Dr Beckwith!
[jj] I just wondered, because back when I was a Calvinist, one of the things that eventually led me to the Catholic Church was the issue, then hot in Reformed circles, of paedocommunion. Roger Beckwith’s name stuck with me as being an opponent of paedocommunion.
[jj] Welcome home. Well, as you were brought up a Catholic, it was your home long before it was mine. I have been a communicant Catholic for 11 and a half years. I still have to pinch myself to believe it’s real – that this astounding good could have been given to me.
SDG,
I pointed out that Brown said something similar with respect to post-critical documents. To simplify it, he said that unless a church document intends to explicitly teach something about how a verse of the Bible is interpreted, it should not be so construed. He doesn’t think there are any such documents.
Of course NAB notes have zero weight, and can’t even be said to represent the views of the USCCB per se, let alone the Catholic Church.
That said, the first two clauses of this particular note merely establish the difficulties of reconciling details from Luke’s account with other historical data; the last clause offers a conjectural proposal as a possible way of resolving the difficulty, without at all “pushing” any solution.
Of course NAB notes have zero weight, and can’t even be said to represent the views of the USCCB per se, let alone the Catholic Church.
The NAB (to include the notes) “is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics.”
without at all “pushing” any solution.
You need to read better. I didn’t say the NAB is pushing a solution. I said the USCCB is pushing the NAB (which includes the notes.)
Besides, Jeb, you are going to have to do better than just keep quoting Raymond Brown. For instance, you quote Brown saying that “Vatican II rejects a view of inerrancy “similar to” that taught by fundamentalism,” but you don’t produce the actual Vatican II text that supposedly does this. And, of course, what Dei Verbum actually says is “what is asserted by the human author is asserted by the Holy Spirit.”
Raymond Brown’s opinions have no weight. Raymond Brown is not our Teacher, the Magisterium is. If the Catechism states that the Church “holds firmly” that she “unhesitatingly affirms” the “historicity” of the four Gospels — and sums up and expresses Catholic teaching by saying “We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man” — well, that is as clear and straightforward an affirmation of the aforementioned historical circumstances of Jesus’ birth as one could wish, and hand-waving isn’t going to change that.
In other words — given that the views of the USCCB, let alone the Catholic Church, do not rest on fifty mostly Catholic biblical scholars — like I said, the notes have zero weight, and can’t even be said to represent the views of the USCCB per se, let alone the Catholic Church.
I read you correctly. I was simply rolling a term you had used into a different connection in the discussion.
As fun as it is to prove ourselves right and pat ourselves in the back, doing that doesn’t help someone make the jump from the Protestant paradigm to the Catholic one. Sorry to keep bringing this back up, but maybe understanding the different way that our Protestant brothers see the Church will help us explain ourselves to them. I have a personal interest in this because my wife is Presbyterian. So any thoughts on how to better understand the Protestant side of the Tiber, and maybe how to build a bridge, would be greatly appreciated.
Kolson asked: “How can the Catholic Church require someone to believe something that is not defended by Scripture?” He agreed that this summed up the point he was hitting on: “From my Catholic mindset I see the Church as the arbiter of Truth, if She knows the the Truth it’s Her duty to preach it. That’s why I think the Church must define such doctrine when it’s certain of the Truth. But from many Protestant viewpoints, it’s not necessarily the church’s job to act in this way. They see the church overstepping it’s bounds in this type of situation. I think this difference in the church/belief paradigm is what Kolson was trying to point out.”
a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem
Maybe that just means she was a Bethlehem resident. Or it means Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It’s actually not 100% clear from that awkward language. I can’t recall the last time I ever heard someone say they were born “at” New York City for example.
In other words — given that the views of the USCCB, let alone the Catholic Church, do not rest on fifty mostly Catholic biblical scholars — like I said, the notes have zero weight, and can’t even be said to represent the views of the USCCB per se, let alone the Catholic Church.
Of course not. That’s because there is no clear Catholic view that answers all the issues.
As opposed to the clear Protestant view?
Clear as anyone else’s view.
If you mean issues like how to resolve the historical questions around the Lucan census, then you’re right, there is no clear Catholic view and no clear Protestant view.
If you mean questions like “Should babies be baptized? Should women be ordained? What exactly are we doing at the Lord’s Table?” then the Catholic answers emerge with gratifying clarity, where there is only a cacaphony from the myriads of Protestant sects, and even among Protestants equally committed to a high view of scripture as the authoritative and inerrant word of God.
If you mean questions like “Should babies be baptized?… then the Catholic answers emerge with gratifying clarity
Oh, like limbo.
No, I mean essential practical questions where we have to do one thing or another — baptize babies or wait until they’re older; ordain women or not; regard the Blessed Sacrament as a symbol or as Our Lord truly and bodily present.
The Church can muddle along till the end of time without a definitive answer on limbo (which, presumably, is part of why God saw fit not to address the question definitively in divine revelation). Whether babies should be baptized is something we need to know the answer to right now, every time a baby is born.
And, since scripture alone manifestly does not give that question a definitive answer of sufficient perspicacity to be clear to all serious believers who honor the Bible as God’s inerrant word, those who practice sola scriptura will necessarily be divided into separate and mutually exclusive communions offering either paedobapism or “credobaptism” until the end of time.
Whether babies should be baptized is something we need to know the answer to right now, every time a baby is born.
Your “should” is really just a statement of “don’t know.” You don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies.
Incidentally, this is a point that really bothered me as a young Evangelical, and was one of a number of converging points that helped to guide my feet toward Rome. My father was a Reformed pastor and had done his pastoral thesis on pedobaptism, so I knew the convenantal and biblical arguments as well as anyone. Even so, I couldn’t help feeling that it was an elaborate hermeneutical structure built up on a precariously slender textual foundation.
Yet I found the “credobaptism” position no more clearly compelling. In keeping with the Protestant doctrine of the sufficient perspicacity or clarity of scripture, I expected scripture alone to be sufficiently clear on all necessary points of faith and practice, and to my mind pedobaptism — along with the ordination of women and a few other issues — was solidly among those necessary points of faith and practice.
Incidentally, while within my own communion there was no dispute over pedobaptism, the ordination of women was a major source of contention. The issue had an absolute stranglehold on the church of my father’s ordination; sometimes it seemed they never talked about anything else.
Yet while I did see a scriptural basis for a solution to these problems, I saw plausible arguments on both sides, and ultimately no sufficiently perspicacious resolution on either side — certainly not perspicacious enough to unite even all of those committed to the authority of scripture as God’s word.
Eventually, I began to suspect that there was something wrong with my initial premise, that the scriptures alone were ever meant to be sufficient to bring about the unity of faith and practice willed by Christ.
(Brian: Don’t know if this is of interest, but I thought of your comments while posting.)
Um, no. We don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies, but in the Catholic Church there is zero ambiguity as regards the practical precept that babies should be baptized, as soon as reasonably possible. The paedo/credo-baptism controversy — a major fault line in Protestantism — has zero purchase in the Catholic Church.
We, as a communion, know the answer to that question, without any hesitation or ambiguity. Protestantism as a movement can’t say the same… and never, ever will, because the Bible alone, while it contains indications, does not provide sufficient clarity on this issue apart from the illumination of sacred tradition.
Put another way: The Protestant precept of sola scriptura will never, ever unite all who follow it, however earnestly, on the issue of paedo/credo-baptism. The Catholic precept of sacred scripture and sacred tradition as authentically interpreted by the Magisterium does and always has united all who follow it on this same issue.
Same goes for the ordination of women, among others.
something wrong with my initial premise, that the scriptures alone were ever meant to be sufficient to bring about the unity of faith and practice willed by Christ.
Did your initial premise come from Scripture? According to poster Kelson, 2 Timothy 3:14 “tells us that Scripture is sufficient for saving faith.” Maybe he meant 2 Timothy 3:15: “the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”
Thanks SDG,
Maybe I made Kelson’s question out to be a bigger deal than it actually is. It just made me think… It’s like we’re all astronomers charting the same planets move across the same sky. For the the most part we agree on the data, but one camp is using a heliocentric model of the universe and the other is using a geocentric model. That’s why we don’t agree even though we see the same thing.
I think it explains why no matter how much evidence we have support our beliefs it’s never convincing to Erick, Jeb and other non-Catholics who come here looking for reasonable debate. Most of the evidence we provide already fits into their model to support what they believe. The rest doesn’t even have a place in their model (like the Church making the Assumption of Mary infallible in 1950) so no matter what the evidence it just doesn’t make sense. It’s like the key differences aren’t in the evidence as much as they’re in the way we process and understand that evidence.
Or maybe I’m just way overanalyzing this.
Brian, great analogy. That’s pretty much exactly what it’s like.
Even as a Protestant, I don’t think I was ever convinced that the Bible itself teaches that it and it alone is the final authority in matters of faith and morals. I believed sola scriptura was true, but eventually I realized that I held this as a practical conclusion, not an article of faith. I believed in the Bible’s authority, and at that time I rejected the claims of sacred tradition and the Catholic magisterium, and since I didn’t see any other credible claimants to authority along with scripture, as a practical conclusion I held that scripture alone was the final authority in matters of faith and morals.
At the same time, since I eventually realized that was a practical conclusion rather than an article of faith taught in scripture itself, in principle I was open to reconsidering it… and eventually I found myself forced to do so, in part because of the issue noted above, the unresolvability of certain key practical, communion-splitting issues like infant baptism and the ordination of women on a sola scriptura basis.
SDG posted:
“Put another way: The Protestant precept of sola scriptura will never, ever unite all who follow it, however earnestly, on the issue of paedo/credo-baptism. The Catholic precept of sacred scripture and sacred tradition as authentically interpreted by the Magisterium does and always has united all who follow it on this same issue.”
Well to take a closer look at your argument, the Protestants before the reformation (Luther specific) was a devout monk who placed all of his faith in just that, the Catholic church. Upon his 3 month trek to Rome which he waited years to do, he was shocked to see the selling of indulgences to finance the abuses taking place back at that time, much like today Catholics see the selling of our most beautiful church’s to pay for the abuses that are today post Vatican II
On the other hand, when you place your faith in sola scriptura-how do you know what version of the bible you are reading? Is it the DR version that goes back to the first English Translation as we as Catholics used to and Traditionalists still adhere to-or the 4x retranslated, santitized ecumenical and soon to be edited once again by the Catholic church under the approval of B16 to be less “anti semitic” version?
So I think what you need to do is find your faith and traditions as they were before V2 and the catholic “reformation” as well as the bible when it was first translated into English before the liberal theologians of the 1960’s-2000 got their hands on it and adhere to both.
There is no right answer
“the 4x retranslated, santitized ecumenical and soon to be edited once again by the Catholic church under the approval of B16 to be less ‘anti semitic’ version?”
This is the second time in as many weeks that I’ve seen this accusation that the Pope is about to retranslate the Bible to make it less anti-Bible. Both times it has come from traditionalists. And yet I’ve still not seen any news reports anywhere that the Pope has officially mandated a revision of the Bible to remove alleged anti-Semitism. Does anybody know what these traditionalists are talking about?
Jordan Potter posted:
“This is the second time in as many weeks that I’ve seen this accusation that the Pope is about to retranslate the Bible to make it less anti-Bible. Both times it has come from traditionalists. And yet I’ve still not seen any news reports anywhere that the Pope has officially mandated a revision of the Bible to remove alleged anti-Semitism. Does anybody know what these traditionalists are talking about?”
Here you go Jordan, you should read some other sources as this has been all over the catholic news agencies and not an “invention” of Traditionalists!!
An entire section of a preparatory document released by the Vatican on Friday is devoted to the Church’s relationship with Jews, noting the “close associations of the two in faith” and calling for efforts “to overcome every form of anti-Semitism.”
The 60-page document, which was approved by Pope Benedict XVI, outlines the suggested topics and includes a questionnaire to be answered by local bishops.
After asking if priority is given to dialogue with the Jews, the questionnaire calls on bishops to investigate the use of biblical texts to “ferment attitudes of anti-Semitism.”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702368.htm
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3393155,00.html
http://www.huliq.com/19998/anti-semitism-to-be-key-issue-in-vatican
Jordan,
It has to do with articles like this and this.
Some group did a study and submitted a paper cautioning that the Tridentine liturgy might be seen as antisemitic. Therefore John sees the writing on the wall: Pope Benedict is going to rewrite the New American Bible to make it acceptable to even the most liberal relativist. So far he’s the only one who’s reached that conclusion, but maybe he knows something we don’t.
John, as a former Protestant myself, I know what I’m talking about when I say that your thinking is far more aligned with the Protestant principles I grew up with than it is to the assent of faith that is the hallmark of Catholic belief as I have come to embrace it. I could become Orthodox, or an atheist, sooner than I could accept your brand of Catholic dissent.
Brian posted:
Therefore John sees the writing on the wall: Pope Benedict is going to rewrite the New American Bible to make it acceptable to even the most liberal relativist. So far he’s the only one who’s reached that conclusion, but maybe he knows something we don’t.”
Well Brian, maybe if you read the exerpt from CNS as well as http://www.vatican.va and the intro into the NAB where it says that the NAB has been retranslated to eliminate antisemitism and also goes onto talk about eliminating, if I recall the correct wording anti female (there is now discussion of removing all references to God as the “Father” but instead as “Creator” to be more PC).
As in CNS:
“The outline specifically asked bishops to report on any incidents in which the Scriptures are misused “to ferment attitudes of anti-Semitism,” a problem usually associated with readings about the passion of Jesus and the role of the Jewish leaders of his time.
Croatian Archbishop Nikola Eterovic, secretary-general of the Synod of Bishops, told reporters, “We would be happy if everyone said this is no longer a problem, but it is a question that must be asked.”
“Our relationship with the Jewish people is very special, and we hope every shadow of anti-Semitism has disappeared,” he said.
The archbishop said his office had not begun drawing up a list of the guests who will be invited to the synod, but he did not rule out the possibility of inviting a Jewish representative along with the delegates from other Christian churches. Such guests participate but do not vote at the synods.”
John, I accept all your quotes but I don’t see how they’re going to result in a new Bible. Lots of people think the Church should do lots of different things. It doesn’t mean the Church is going to to do them (thank God!). I think you posted an article a week or two ago about how KFC or some fast food joint asked the Pope to bless their fish sandwich for Lent. Does that mean that Benedict endorses KFC or that any Pope would ever do such a ridiculous thing?
SDG posted:
“John, as a former Protestant myself, I know what I’m talking about when I say that your thinking is far more aligned with the Protestant principles I grew up with than it is to the assent of faith that is the hallmark of Catholic belief as I have come to embrace it. I could become Orthodox, or an atheist, sooner than I could accept your brand of Catholic dissent.”
SDG-First my only dissent is the appeasement that the Catholic church has made appease you-a former and possibly still Protestant at least in way of thinking and belief. I know many Protestants who only became Catholics because of marriage,as the Catholic church requires if you want to marry a Catholic to sign a document that you will raise your children Catholic and those spouses usually convert, but never are catechised at all. I have 3 former Episcopal managers who work for me who are on their second and third marriages this time with Catholics and thanks to JPII’s code of canon law were able to get their first 2 marriages annulled because of the great and ingenious loophole he inserted which allows marriages previously to non catholics to be annuled, even if you had 50 children (basically making them illegitimate) and allow you to marry in the church. They never have been catechised, never saw the inside of a confessional and have been going to Catholic church with their wives for 20 years, receiving Christ and never a word said by anyone. Before V2 you had 300 annulments a year in the US. Now 60,000 in the Catholic church. My sister in law just got one last week, married for 8 years, one child but used the excuse she was forced into marriage because she got pregnant, he was a drinker, now she met some other guy wants to marry him and got the divorce a year ago and the annulment a month ago. All with a 8 year marriage and a 9 year old son. What a deal!!
So of course you dont like “my brand” of Catholicism because it is the true brand, the one that does not compromise but holds “fast to tradition” and teachings.
as the Catholic church requires if you want to marry a Catholic to sign a document that you will raise your children Catholic and those spouses usually convert
Is this still required anymore? The priest who married us showed it to us but didn’t require us to sign it?
As a Protestant evangelical, I cannot exactly say “welcome back”, but I do pray that Dr. Beckwith continues to grow in the Lord and prosper the entire Church, in every part, as we grow together into Him who is our Head.
John, I’m sure the scope and rationale for your dissent makes a lot of sense to you. I’ve had some very stimulating conversations with devout Orthodox who also have persuasive rationales for the scope and extent of their disagreement with Rome. Frankly, I find their position more tenable than yours.
They believe the Roman Church has put way too much stock in its Petrine pretensions all along, and has gone off the rails, leaving them as the standard-bearers of truth. But you — you actually buy all the Petrine stuff to the hilt, yet you still think the Roman Church has gone off the rails, leaving you and like-minded dissenters as the standard-bearers of truth.
Call me a half-converted closet Protestant if you want to. But if I follow Peter, I follow Peter to hell and back, through the valley of the shadow of death and the wasteland of the post-everything West and the ennervated post-everything Western Church.
I will not follow half-heartedly and resentfully, claiming to be a True Son of the Church in some technical, asterisked sense, calling Peter my father with my lips while in word and deed standing in judgment of his every action. The Petrine ministry you acknowledge might as well not exist.
Of course NAB notes have zero weight, and can’t even be said to represent the views of the USCCB per se, let alone the Catholic Church.
Even as a Catholic this seems a bit disingenious to me. This is the “official” translation endosed by the USCCB with imperator’s and Nihil Obstat’s and everything. It is promoted as the “Catholic” bible. For years I took the footnotes as little more than the Churches commentary on the bible. Only in the last few years have I discovered that the translation leaves much to be desired and the footnotes even more. So what is the common Catholic to do? I don’t have the time (or intellegence) to read all the Papal proclimations and commentaries to “be in the know” on the bible. It is reasonable for a protestent to pick up the NAB and assume what he reads in the footnotes are the opinion of the church.
“You don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies.”
And you do?
Is it amazing how self-proclaimed “traditionalist” will always claim what limited authority a living pope has to define and declare all the while demonstrating their own unlimited authority to define and declare.
God have mercy on us all.
Take care and God bless,
Inocecnio
J+M+J
Slowboy,
To avoid further confusion, the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or a pamphlet is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.
This has been a public service announcement funded by no one.
So what is the common Catholic to do?
Go back to the first English Translation of the Bible approved by the Catholic Church, the DR bible. Not perfect by anymeans, but at least it is not secular and trying to appease all in the name of ecumenism
Soon the NAB will have no Jewish people within 1000 miles of Jeruselum to appease Foxman and the militant rabbi’s who by the way as the article above indicates will actually have a representative at the synod.
Soon it will be the Swiss in charge of the sanhedrens!! Thats a safe group the Bishops can use!
“It is reasonable for a protestent to pick up the NAB and assume what he reads in the footnotes are the opinion of the church.”
It is reasonable for a Catholic, too. Unfortunately, the NAB is a very weak translation, subtly reflecting a number of biases, and the footnotes are worthless – at best. At worst they make implications (perhaps not stated outright) that would seem to flatly contradict real Catholic teaching on scripture… imprimatur notwithstanding.
The overall effect of reading the footnotes is to come away questioning whether there is anything AT ALL in the Bible that may be taken at face value. They focus on higher criticism with a kind of tunnel vision, freely speculating on the writer’s motivations, politics and real intent, while leaving the impression that the historicity of the events is of relatively little importance.
I wouldn’t blame non-Catholics for taking this as a reliable indicator of Catholic thought, which is a travesty.
How in the blazes did this thread become all about John???
Also, anybody with enough sense would know that real Traditionalists do not use the Duoay Rheims, as it is a faulty English translation of the Vulgate!
The Vulgate, if anything, is the standard, for goodness sakes, where any actual Catholic Traditionalist is concerned.
Also, if this thread is going to be about John, yet again, can we just close the comments like what was done in the other thread?
This thread is supposed to be about Dr. Beckwith or the Conversion of similar Protestants as well as any issues in that regard (such as the ones being discussed yesterday), NOT John!!!
Slowboy, I appreciate your thoughts and I understand entirely your point that a Protestant or even a Catholic might “reasonably” pick up the NAB and “assume” that the footnotes represent the “opinion of the Church.”
However, not every reasonable assumption turns out to be correct, and facts are facts. I wouldn’t blame a Protestant or Catholic for thinking that he could pick up the NAB and read the notes to get a sense of “the opinion of the Church,” but blameworthy or not, he is mistaken.
So what’s a common Catholic to do? Well, unless he becomes better informed, he is likely to remain somewhat uninformed and misinformed. There are worse fates, and it is not his fault. He will not go to hell for crediting the NAB study notes, as wanting as they may be.
Without offering him a crash course in magisterial proclamations, I would recommend an Ignatius Study Bible (RSV-CE), and encourage him to study it, the Catechism and the Compendium.
SDG,
I was raised a Catholic but left because of the church’s support for higher criticism and evolution. I think it’s true that the catholic church provides more certainty on some issues, but on others not so much.
In addition, I think the Bible’s teaching on women and the ministry is perfectly clear. I don’t need Rome to tell me that women can’t be ministers.
Soon the NAB will have no Jewish people within 1000 miles of Jeruselum to appease Foxman and the militant rabbi’s who by the way as the article above indicates will actually have a representative at the synod.”
Care to put money on that?
“How in the blazes did this thread become all about John???”
Because that’s what John DOES. He hijacks every thread with his hateful nonsense.
Not a troll, so much as a kool-aid drinking Rab-Trad bomb thrower. (yes, that’s RAB-trad, as in “rabid”, as in foaming at the mouth).
what is the common Catholic to do? I don’t have the time (or intellegence) to read all the Papal proclimations and commentaries to “be in the know” on the bible.
Actually, Dei Verbum would indeed be a good start.
But, as far as a real good bible study is concerned, The Navarre Bible, on the other hand, is an excellent work done by the superb authority on Catholic Theology, the University of Navarre.
All Catholics are encouraged to refer to and possess these editions as they are faithful renderings of Catholic Teaching and Theology. They’re filled with comments on the passages from the Fathers, history and Church teaching.
Here’s Fr. Corapi’s take on the Navarre Series (for those EWTN fans out there, they’ll know who he is):
“On a practical note, I highly recommend The Navarre Bible, a unique set of commentaries on the New Testament books published by Four Courts Press and distributed in the United States by Scepter Press. It is available from most good Catholic book stores, as well as direct from Scepter Press. This set, prepared by the Ecclesiastical Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, beautifully incorporates all of the principles above stated* in a very simple, readable, and spiritually enriching presentation. It can be a great help to Scripture study groups or to individuals who desire to read the Bible as the Catholic Church does.”
Fr. Corapi Recommends the Navarre Bible
“…but left because of the church’s support for higher criticism and evolution.”
That’s a shame. The Church, as far as I have been able to discern from authentic teaching documents, supports only the benign aspects of higher criticism (it does have it’s legitimate applications), while clearly warning against it’s misuse. Her “support” of evolution would be news to a lot of modernists. Evolution – of a certain kind – is certainly allowed as one point of view, but unless I have missed something, the Church has officially taken no position on it’s reliability as a theory, which is just as it should be.
Are you sure you are not reading more into the Church’s statements than is really there?
Tim,
Read Ratzinger’s book In the Beginning. He comes out in favor of evolution and says that Genesis 1 dates from the Babylonian exile.
In addition, I judge an organization not just by what it “officially” teaches but what it allows. Not even ID has much traction in Catholic circles. (I believe the Vatican astronomer ridiculed it recently.)
BTW, “It’s” = “it is”; “its” is the possessive.
Read Ratzinger’s book In the Beginning. He comes out in favor of evolution and says that Genesis 1 dates from the Babylonian exile.
Jeb,
Please provide the passages that prove this.
Also, please read what the Catholic Church actually says on the matter rather than your gloss on things.
As I said, Jeb;
“…as far as I have been able to discern from authentic teaching documents”
B16’s personal views are of great interest, but carry no doctrinal weight, as you know.
So, you are scandalized that the Church allows that certain views of evolution are not contrary to the Faith?
Esau posted:
But, as far as a real good bible study is concerned, The Navarre Bible, on the other hand, is an excellent work done by the superb authority on Catholic Theology, the University of Navarre.
All Catholics are encouraged to refer to and possess these editions as they are faithful renderings of Catholic Teaching and Theology. They’re filled with comments on the passages from the Fathers, history and Church teaching.
Here’s Fr. Corapi’s take on the Navarre Series (for those EWTN fans out there, they’ll know who he is)”
Esau-Are you calling Father Corapi,and yourself a dissenter from the Vatican II Catholic Church, which on their very website http://www.vatican.va, says catholics must use and ONLY use the NAB!!
Are you doing so to cover up for the lame, weak politically correct soon to be totally sanitized Ecumenical NAB??
He did, but Cardinal Schonborn has defended it, so it’s a hasty generalization to say it doesn’t have much traction. One Catholic scientist’s opinion does not a climate of opinion make.
Besides, I’m still unsure myself whether ID ought to have much traction. As ID proponent Paul Nelson has admitted:
So until this “bag of powerful intuitions” matures into a real theory, it’s hard to know how much traction it will ultimately have.
John: Produce a source.
John,
on their very website http://www.vatican.va, says catholics must use and ONLY use the NAB!!
I know that it doesn’t say this on the Vatican website, but others might not. Could you provide a link (or at least a cite) to the page you’re referencing so that people can see what it is you’re misconstruing?
Thanks
As Michael Behe (I believe) has noted, terms like “evolution” and “intelligent design” are of little use until people take the time and effort to figure out whether they’re talking about the same thing or not. Unfortunately, that rarely happens, especially in a combox world.
Esau-Are you calling Father Corapi,and yourself a dissenter from the Vatican II Catholic Church, which on their very website http://www.vatican.va, says catholics must use and ONLY use the NAB!!
*ROFL*
Now, I know with complete certainty that you are indeed ignorant and not a Traditionalist at all.
For one, it appears you don’t know the significance of the University of Navarre as far as the far-reaching history of the Catholic Church is concerned.
Second, the fact that you say the Vatican declares we use ONLY the NAB is indeed one of the most riscible statements yet — not to mention, a lie.
Okay, now can we please get back to the topic?
I believe Jeb was discussing something of relevance to this thread.
‘In the Beginning’ by Joseph Ratzinger, pg 50, Third Homily
“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things correspond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God…does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. … And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in doing so it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent, we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.”
Kelson,
I don’t have my copy of Ratzinger’s book handy, but if your quotation is meant to disprove that he disbelieves in evolution, the quote doesn’t support it. (I never said Ratzinger supported a purely naturalistic account of evolution.)
Not that the says that: “The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God…does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. … ” I take it that he does not believe that Genesis is a historically accurate account of the creation of man and woman. I disagree.
“Here you go Jordan, you should read some other sources as this has been all over the catholic news agencies and not an ‘invention’ of Traditionalists!!”
John, I’m pretty well read when it comes to Catholic news agencies. If it had been all over the Catholic news agencies, then I probably would have noticed it. The reason I asked what the traditionalists like you are talking about is because I haven’t seen anything in the Catholic press about it.
Indeed, the news reports you cite do not say anything at all about the Pope wanting to retranslate the Bible to remove anti-Semitism. I’d already read the reports about the next Synod of Bishops, and there’s nothing in there like what the traditionalists rumors have been claiming. It’s good that the Church is continuing her commitment to root out every last trace of the sin and false doctrine of anti-Semitism, but she doesn’t need to edit or bowdlerise the Bible to do that. Fighting anti-Semitism in the context of Bible and Liturgy is more a matter of interpretation than translation. These traditionalist rumors are overblown paranoid fears with no basis in fact.
I take it that he does not believe that Genesis is a historically accurate account of the creation of man and woman. I disagree.
Jeb:
So you think God created the world in 7 Days?
Were you there?
Jeb,
I was just providing the reference for Ratzinger’s take on evolution and creation. I wasn’t trying to make an argument.
I take it that he does not believe that Genesis is a historically accurate account of the creation of man and woman. I disagree.
Jeb, This may not be something you’re used to hearing, but within the Catholic Church you’ve got room to disagree (obviously within certain limits) on that issue. Your view is perfectly Catholic as is Pope Benedict’s.
Can somebody obviously present during the Creation of the world please define what a ‘day’ is?
Also, why would an all-powerful God actually need 7 days to create anything?
Are you telling me that an all-powerful God is restricted by the Laws of Physics or something and, therefore, need a certain time period in order to actually create the world?
Esau posted:
Now, I know with complete certainty that you are indeed ignorant and not a Traditionalist at all.
For one, it appears you don’t know the significance of the University of Navarre as far as the far-reaching history of the Catholic Church is concerned.
Second, the fact that you say the Vatican declares we use ONLY the NAB is indeed one of the most riscible statements yet — not to mention, a lie.”
ESAU-ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE SO WRONG!! Take a look my friend right on the USCCB website, where since 2002 the NAB is the ONLY bible allowed to be used at mass
And then take a look at the intro to the NAB on the Vatican website if you have ever done so where it clearly shows the intention of the NAB, where since 1978 it has been butchered
So calling me a liar-Please apologize now my good little Esau?
http://www.usccb.org/nab/faq.shtml
Is the New American Bible the only translation of Scriptures we can read from at Mass?
Since May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American Bible is the only English-language Lectionary that may be used at Mass in the dioceses of the United States, except for the current Lectionary for Masses with Children which remains in use.
The 1970 edition of the New American Bible is used in the Scripture readings and canticles of the Liturgy of the Hours (except the Benedictus, Magnificat, and Nunc dimittis.)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV7.HTM
Accordingly, it was decided in 1978 to proceed with a thorough revision of the New Testament to reflect advances in scholarship and to satisfy needs identified through pastoral experience.
For this purpose a steering committee was formed to plan, organize, and direct the work of revision, to engage collaborators, and to serve as an editoral board to coordinate the work of the various revisers and to determine the final form of the text and the explanatory materials. Guidelines were drawn up and collaborators selected in 1978 and early 1979, and November of 1980 was established as the deadline for manuscripts. From December 1980 through September 1986 the editoral board met a total of fifty times and carefully reviewed and revised all the material in order to ensure accuracy and consistency of approach. The editors also worked together with the bishops’ ad hoc committee that was appointed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1982 to oversee the revision.
An especially sensitive problem today is the question of discrimination in language. In recent years there has been much discussion about allegations of anti-Jewish expressions in the New Testament and of language that discriminates against various minorities. Above all, however, the question of discrimination against women affects the largest number of people and arouses the greatest degree of interest and concern. At present there is little agreement about these problems or about the best way to deal with them. In all these areas the present translation attempts to display a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the questions under discussion, which are not yet resolved and in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views.
The primary concern in this revision is fidelity to what the text says. When the meaning of the Greek is inclusive of both sexes, the translation seeks to reproduce such inclusivity insofar as this is possible in normal English usage, without resort to inelegant circumlocutions or neologisms that would offend against the dignity of the language. Although the generic sense of man is traditional in English, many today reject it; its use has therefore generally been avoided, though it is retained in cases where no fully satisfactory equivalent could be found. English does not possess a gender-inclusive third personal pronoun in the singular, and this translation continues to use the masculine resumptive pronoun after everyone or anyone, in the traditional way, where this cannot be avoided without infidelity to the meaning.
And Esau-Please dont pull a Clinton -Father Corapi is still under the authority of the USCCB and so are you I suppose?????
John, you perfectly refute the line of thinking common to some Protestant denominations that anyone can read and interpret the Bible for himself. Keep up the good work.
First John makes this ludicrous and indefensible statement:
but then he backtracks and makes this quite different statement:
…and acts as if he is defending his original statement, instead of a revised statement that says something quite different. (And then he has the gall to issue a preemptive strike against another poster “pulling a Clinton,” after having just pulled one himself!)
Who do you think you are fooling, John? Are you really that sloppy a thinker that the two statements above look the same to you, or do you think no one here will notice your bait and switch, or what?
First off, nothing that you’ve presented says:
catholics must use and ONLY use the NAB!!
Second, do you not even know that the University of Navarre is a Pontifical university?
You do know what a “Pontifical University” is, don’t you???
Here’s some info in case you don’t know the significance of this:
A Pontifical University is established by and directly under the authority of the Holy See. It is licensed to grant academic degrees in sacred faculties, the most important of which are Sacred Theology, Canon Law, and Philosophy. Pontifical universities follow a European system of degrees in the sacred faculties, granting the baccalaureate, license, and doctorate.
These ecclesiastical degrees are prerequisites to certain offices in the Roman Catholic Church, especially considering that bishop candidates are selected mainly from priests who are doctors of sacred theology or canon law and that ecclesiastical judges and attorneys must at least be licentiates of canon law.
Okay, folks, please, let’s get back to the topic relevant to this thread. Jeb brought up a relevant point. Let’s get back to it, shall we? This thread shouldn’t be about John but about our seperated brethren and the issues about the Journey Home!
John:
Can you please stop being SO SELFISH and allow the dialogue to continue between us and our seperated brethren here?
Bold Off:
Thank-you for contributing something so meaningful to the discussion here.
SDG posted:
First John makes this ludicrous and indefensible statement:
on their very website http://www.vatican.va, says catholics must use and ONLY use the NAB!!
but then he backtracks and makes this quite different statement:
Take a look my friend right on the USCCB website, where since 2002 the NAB is the ONLY bible allowed to be used at mass
…and acts as if he is defending his original statement, instead of a revised statement that says something quite different. (And then he has the gall to issue a preemptive strike against another poster “pulling a Clinton,” after having just pulled one himself!)
Who do you think you are fooling, John? Are you really that sloppy a thinker that the two statements above look the same to you, or do you think no one here will notice your bait and switch, or what?
SDG-Have you been catechised yet?
Ok, then with respect to the above, the vatican website (English version) applies to the ENGLISH speaking world, and recommends that ALL must use the NAB. Esau made a statement as he was clearly embarassed by the NAB and its lameness and use at mass here in the USA (English speaking I presume??) and its use in the entirety, and tried to reference good old Fr Corapi and the Pontifical university, whose bible is NOT allowed to be used at Mass per the USCCB
And SDG and ESAU-Any comment on the retranslation of the NAB time and again making its validity not to mention all that go with the Mass it is used at “questionable”?
John,
This is not catechesis. This is basic language and reasoning skills. If you can’t see that “Catholics must use and ONLY use the NAB” is a different proposition from “the NAB is the ONLY bible allowed to be used at mass,” then you either don’t know how to read or you don’t know how to think. (Or perhaps in your mind the Bible has no place in Catholic use outside of Mass?)
Folks,
Can we just IGNORE John’s comments — especially on this thread???
Our seperated brethren should be the priority on this thread since there are critical issues that need to be confronted and may very well bring certain folks in the audience a better understanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches rather than what they think it teaches.
Also, these may very well be critical issues that may, in fact, be obstacles to people’s conversions and why there are many who have a difficult time even considering the Journey Home to the Catholic Church.
One thing that was nice when I was once of the Protestant persuasion, it was of the utmost priority for us to bring folks into our church and save souls.
This thread would seem an excellent opportunity — not to actually do the same (although, it would be a nice side benefit) but — to confront the issues Protestants deal with concerning their (albeit sometimes mistakened) notions concerning the Catholic Church.
then you either don’t know how to read or you don’t know how to think
He has proven both many, many times.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
This thread would seem an excellent opportunity — not to actually do the same (although, it would be a nice side benefit) but — to confront the issues Protestants deal with concerning their (albeit sometimes mistakened) notions concerning the Catholic Church.
Here, let me try to get things back on track for this thread.
One of the reasons I personally thought (back in the days) that the Catholic Church went APOSTATE (as many, if not, all of those in my Protestant church — and those Protestant churches it was in association with), was, for one, the thing about the Scapular.
Now, how can it be deemed acceptable that just by merely wearing the Scapular, that one can automatically be saved???
This would seem to go against the very Teachings of Jesus; that only through Him can one be saved.
Here’s a quick answer from Carmelnet
The Carmelite Scapular is not:
* a magical charm to protect you
* an automatic guarantee of salvation
* an excuse for not living up to the demands of the Christian life
It is a sign:
* which has been approved by the Church for over seven centuries;
* which stands for the decision to
o follow Jesus like Mary:
o be open to God and to his will
o be guided by faith, hope, and love
o to pray at all times
o to discover God present in all that happens around us.
Re scapular — think stone soup.
Stone soup is great not because the stone is great, but because of all the other ingredients that get added to the stone soup.
A scapular is recommended because of the faith it inspires. If it didn’t inspire faith, it would be worthless, or worse, a source of scandal. But wearing the scapular is a constant reminder of one’s faith, and a constant exhortation to live one’s faith.
Esau posted:
“Here, let me try to get things back on track for this thread.
One of the reasons I personally thought (back in the days) that the Catholic Church went APOSTATE (as many, if not, all of those in my Protestant church — and those Protestant churches it was in association with), was, for one, the thing about the Scapular.”
He has finally admitted along with SDG that he was a Protestant and probably still is! He like Scott Hahn hated the Catholic church and still does and in his guise as a shepherd is really the wolf leading the faithful Catholics and Traditionalists out to slaughter. Hate the scapular?
And SDG-keep trying to do the Bill Clinton, ESAU made a stupid comment and still cant refute that the NAB used at ALL Novus Ordo Masses has been compromised to be a book of appeasement and ecumenism
And Inocencio posted about me:
“then you either don’t know how to read or you don’t know how to think
He has proven both many, many times.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J”
Please note the wolf as well-a clear and nasty comment about me-with “Take Care and God bless with J+M+J (Jesus Mary Joseph-I guess you think you are Bishop Sheen) What a clear contradiction, being nasty and condescending not able to refute what is posted and then sign with God bless JMJ
False just like what is being sold today by so called “catholics” like Scott Hahn
All right John, you’ve said your piece, shot your wad, and told us all what you think of us, we’ve responded, and any thinking person can drawn his own conclusions at this point. It’s time to give it a rest.
Just so you know, I have admin access to the blog, and while Jimmy is in Rome he asked me to keep an eye on things. I am not Jimmy, and I like to dust it up in the combox, but this has gone far enough for now. It’s time to give us all a break for awhile.
Please do not hold forth on what is wrong with the current approved order of Mass, the NAB or other aspects of the Church today on threads where that is not the subject.
You’ve had the last word and the last shot. Be content with that, and call it a day.
On behalf of “anonymous” bloggers everywhere (or at least here), thank you SDG. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I rest my case.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Did humility go out of fashion?
Well, was it ever in fashion?
Must have been all the rage.
Did humility go out of fashion?
I’m curious to know who is the object of this implication, since various people on here, both Protestant and Catholic, are lacking in humility.
I could very easily prove my above assertion.
My prayer is that you would leave the Roman Catholic system.
Posted by: Brian Kvic | May 6, 2007 10:00 PM
I don’t think the subject of who is or is not humble is leading in an edifying direction. Can we please talk about something else?
To Jeb P.:
You say you left the church because too many had views on creation you disagreed with. This is like leaving your wife because she doesn’t like the color blue. As someone else pointed out there is enough room in the church for both evolution and literal creation views as the Church has not spoken on this matter.
It seems likely though you have other complaints though. When I questioned the church’s teaching on this and that I found the constant answer was, “to whom shall I go”? The Eucharist, Christ, can be found no where else. Deal with your disbelief of the Eucharist and everything else simply becomes unimportant.
Now if you could just help me convince my wife that lavender is NOT a good color for our bedroom.
“My prayer is that you would leave the Roman Catholic system.”
I respect your sincerity, Brian, but it would be better if you didn’t waste your time praying prayers that God won’t answer.
Also, Catholicism isn’t a “system”, but a living faith, flowing from the living Christ.
Why would I leave the faith that I entered at the command of Jesus Christ? What would be my excuse? The Church was His idea.
Amen. And not just Christ’s idea: Christ himself, His body, His bride, His household, and the fulness of Him who fills all in all. For me to abandon the Church would be to abandon Christ, and to abandon my own self and my soul.
A note of thanks to all the regulars here who demonstrate their vibrant faith. I stand in awe at how God works and what each of you did to make that decision.
The Bible ALONE, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
Which logically leads to the claim that no book except the Bible can claim to be: (1) inerrant; and (2) the word of God.
Correction: no book can claim to be (1) inerrant; and (2) the written word of God.
Depending upon how one interprets “written word of God” a Catholic could very well suscribe to this proposition. If by “written word of God” one means “divinely inspired scripture” I see no problem with that. No Catholic I know declares magisterial documents, councils, etc. to be divinely inspired scripture.
The ambiguity of the statement does not foreclose the possibility that other documents, although not scripture, are inerrant.
As stated, we have B alone = WWG
an assumption that WWG = inerrant, therefore, B alone = inerrant.
What we don’t have expressed in the statement is that WWG alone = inerrant. It certainly can be interpreted that way (and perhaps is meant to be) but as worded it leaves the possiblity that things other than WWG are inerrant, or at least that possiblity is not foreclosed by the wording, regardless of the intent of those who drafted it. To say that the WWG alone = inerrant, you immediately run into contradictions, for that very WWG itself states “hold on to the traditions we have handed you, both oral and written,” (one of Paul’s letters) and “He [Jesus] taught and did many things that are not recorded here…” (end of John’s Gospel). Hence, the WWG would therefore be errant.
Classic, classic example of how any writing can be interpreted many ways, and therefore some authoritative mechanism is needed for determining
the meaning.
Perhaps an easier way to think about Scripture/Word of God Written vis a vis magisterial documents is the US Constitution, or any statute, and case law interpreting it.
No one would confuse a SCOTUS case regarding the interpretaion or application of the Constitution (or written statute) as the Constitution (or written statute) itself – the SCOTUS opinions are simply not considered the written word of the founding fathers or legislature in the same sense that the Con or a statute is. Likewise, the Church has never taught or held that its documents, etc. were the “written word of God” in the same sense that Scripture is.
I agree that BobCatholic’s post was imperfectly expressed, but I think he’s right as far as he goes. Since Scripture must be subject to interpretation, both Catholics and sola Scriptura Protestants in fact resort to reason and tradition as tools.
Sola scriptura doesn’t just “not work” for Scripture, it really doesn’t work for any writing, divinely inspired or not (as the ETS statement itself demonstrates).
A note of thanks to all the regulars here who demonstrate their vibrant faith. I stand in awe at how God works and what each of you did to make that decision.
Amen, Mary Kay!
In my personal opinion, Tim J. and SDG has demonstrated to be True Sons of the Church time and again.
They who follow Peter not because of the person who takes up his seat, but because of the Person who gave him the Authority in the first place — Our Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ!
Jimmy Akin keeps rather good company, I must say!
You would need to come up with 1st century evidence of a doctrine that was defined as NECESSARY many centuries later
You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how Church history actually progressed. For that matter, you have a very fundamental lack of understanding how ANY organized activity of human beings progresses. Definitions and doctrines in the Church, and in any organization, usually come up to address a specific problem that theretofor no one had a problem with or simply did not pop up. Nestorian heresies did not get dealt with until Nesotrians showed up. Likewise with any other issue. Companies didn’t adopt policies against sexual harassment until they started getting sued for it. The Church doesn’t define dogmas, etc. until an issue arises that requires the definition (and then, it can take decades or more before it actually gets to defining things). The ETS statement itself didn’t come up until they thought they needed something to get rid of those papists.
Definitions and doctrines in the Church, and in any organization, usually come up to address a specific problem that theretofor no one had a problem with or simply did not pop up. Nestorian heresies did not get dealt with until Nesotrians showed up…The Church doesn’t define dogmas, etc. until an issue arises that requires the definition (and then, it can take decades or more before it actually gets to defining things).
C Matt:
Excellent point!
I think that’s what Anon was leading up to when he mentioned that the Assumption was perhaps something already accepted during the first centuries and, therefore, didn’t require any such defining since it was something already commonly accepted during that time.
In other words, it was simply elementary knowledge that every early Christian already knew to be as fact.
I respect your sincerity, Brian, but it would be better if you didn’t waste your time praying prayers that God won’t answer.
Thank you for respecting my sincerety. For I am sincere, albeit of course some level of pride taints my prayer; but I will pray against that impurity.
As for God not answering my prayer, it is incorrect to say that he would not answer it, for he may in his mercy do the same. But indeed, even if my prayer were a sinful request, that is, if that Dr. Beckwith’s reverting to the Protestant faith is in fact a bad thing, then you are wrong to say that God would not answer it. For he may in his loving discipline hand one of his own into error temporarily, for reasons rooted in his own wisdom and love…. If in fact everything Christian outside of Rome is in darkness.
Also, Catholicism isn’t a “system”, but a living faith, flowing from the living Christ.
How many Catholics do you estimate attend Mass weekly? I don’t know what the number is, but will venture to say that the majority of them show no evidence of a vibrant faith. You can accuse me of being judgmental on this, but let me just say that I would consider it a very dangerous position to be giving Christ the credit for faiths of many who supposedly feed on him weekly. Not only this, but especially would I consider it dangerous to accuse the Saviour of having been behind all the corruption and wickedness that has come from the Catholic hierarchy throughout A.D. redemptive history. One recent example of this is the pedophilia scandal of the priesthood, even though the ministry of so holy a priesthood is a divine thing (Trent 23rd Session Chapter 2).
What I’m getting at is that by all appearances Catholicism is more of a spiritually empty (I’m saying for the most part) organization than anything springing from the power of the risen Christ.
Well, you speak as one outside, as one not well aquainted – I would guess – with great numbers of sincere & devout Catholics (as, happily, I am). In addition, I don’t expect you are looking that hard or that sympathetrically for the Jesus-loving Catholics, and are likely overlooking to some extent the shallowness and hypocrisy characteristic of your own faith tradition.
In many cases, we see what we want to see.
One real shame of the priest abuse crisis is the extent to which it has sullied the image of the vast majority of good, holy priests.
Brian Kvic,
You’re confusing Catholicism with Catholics. Many Catholics are very poor representatives of Catholicism.
For Example:
How many Catholics do you estimate attend Mass weekly? I don’t know what the number is, but will venture to say that the majority of them show no evidence of a vibrant faith.
How many Americans vote regularly? Would you conclude from this that the American Ideal is bogus and bankrupt.
Not only this, but especially would I consider it dangerous to accuse the Saviour of having been behind all the corruption and wickedness that has come from the Catholic hierarchy throughout A.D. redemptive history.
Who claims this? Certainly not the Catholic Church. Maybe others say that the Catholic Church claims this.
One recent example of this is the pedophilia scandal of the priesthood, even though the ministry of so holy a priesthood is a divine thing (Trent 23rd Session Chapter 2).
Yes, the ministry is devine. The people who make up the ministry maybe not so much. Even Aaron made a molten idol, and sadly priests have been sinning ever since.
Brian K,
I don’t know what the number is, but will venture to say that the majority of them show no evidence of a vibrant faith
Based on what?
What I’m getting at is that by all appearances Catholicism is more of a spiritually empty (I’m saying for the most part) organization than anything springing from the power of the risen Christ.
Not from where I stand. Of course, your statement is worded “for the most part” so that you can dismiss any examples to the contrary as “the exception.” While it’s true that many Catholics don’t live their faith fully, there are a great many who do. Catholicism has a thing about being “hidden” so that those who look at the surface only can be greatly mistaken. “Not by the eyes of man do I see, says the Lord.” (if you absolutely need chapter and verse, I’ll scrounge it up.)
Excuse me, it may have appeared in the above post that I was naming myself as a “sincere and devout” Catholic, when what I meant to say was that I am happily AQUAINTED with many sincere & devout Catholics.
That’s what I get for proofreading AFTER I hit the post button.
I certainly HOPE I can be described as sincere and devout, but I know I could do so much better.
Brian Kvic:
Show me evidence of Protestant doctrine in the early Church, and I shall not only concede to your point that the Catholic system is all but abysmal darkness; but will unshackle myself of the Tyranny of Rome!
But, it would seem that you would be more afraid to take up this endeavor and to thoroughly investigate what the early Church really was like — and I could tell you it was more Catholic than it was Protestant!
Even J. N. D. Kelly admitted:
“…the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier” (Early Christian Doctrines, 196).
In fact, Justin Martyr in 150 A.D. wrote:
“And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed in the bath for the forgiveness of sins and to regeneration, and who so lives as Christ has directed. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
(First Apology, 1:62)
Hmmm… sounds ‘Catholic’ to me!
I mean, didn’t Paul even say:
1 Cor 11:27
27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Cor 11:26
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
By the way, J.N.D. Kelly is himself a Protestant. He is described to be Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, England and acknowledged internationally as an authority on patristic Christian thought.
This great early Church historian even wrote:
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
Beginning with Ignatius of Antioch, he cites a gamut of Eastern and Western Fathers who took Jesus quite literally, “This is my Body.”
So, you tell me —
Does this sound ‘Protestant’ to you???
While it’s true that many Catholics don’t live their faith fully, there are a great many who do.
Uhhh… excuse me, folks, but does this mean that ALL Protestants actually live their faith fully as compared to Catholics???
That is, I don’t see how Brian Kvic finds it justified to accuse only Catholics of this when, in fact, there are many Protestants I know who don’t live Christianity as faithfully as well.
Perhaps we’re a little too quick to defend ourselves. While our position does need defending, I think there’s room for discussion here. Why is it that so many Catholics fall short of the ideal? Why do so many choose to stop moving closer to Christ when that’s the whole point of being Catholic? Too often we brush it off as the statistical differences caused by the Protestant model where people choose a denomination and the Catholic model where people “inherit” Catholicism.
Esau, that wasn’t meant in response to your 10:12 post. I didn’t even see it while i was writing mine.
Why is it that so many Catholics fall short of the ideal?
Brian,
There is a discussion to be had here — I agree with you.
But, to limit this to just Catholics would be absurd.
That is, are you claiming then that ALL Protestants actually live their lives faithfully according to the Gospel?
Brian Kvic stated:
Not only this, but especially would I consider it dangerous to accuse the Saviour of having been behind all the corruption and wickedness that has come from the Catholic hierarchy throughout A.D. redemptive history.
There are many, many things wrong with this statement.
For one (among others), who was actually accusing Jesus of this so-claimed corruption and wickedness???
Mind you, the actions of various individuals are those of the individual himself.
Remember, Judas was an Apostle and, yet, he failed to live up to his high calling — the same thing can be said of certain Catholic clergy.
Second, what of the many saints and martyrs of the Catholic Church who actually devoted their lives to Christ and lived the Gospels so faithfully — and, in fact, sacrificed their very lives in the name of Christ?
Third, what of the many good that the Catholic Church has done in the world and how it was the very institution established by Christ and, in fact, not only selected the books that comprised the bible but preserved it all through the ages?
Fourth, does this mean that Protestants have had such an excellent and spotless history?
But, to limit this to just Catholics would be absurd.
Esau I agree, but we’ve already jumped all over Brian K. and pointed out that his observations of sinful Catholics don’t necessarily reflect the Faith. For the sake of engaging him in future conversation maybe we could tackle a tough issue. Afterall, the stereotype that Catholics don’t live their faith exists for a reason. When you go to Church on Sunday how many people in a 20 foot radius of you accept the Magisterium? I don’t know how that number would compare to your average Protestant Church, but I do know that number is embarrassingly low.
Brian,
I believe one possible reason for this is because of the Catholic Church being such a huge Church, comprising of almost 1.5 billion people.
I mean, there are multiple Masses scheduled for both Saturday and Sunday, not only because of the Sabbath, but also to accomodate the many, many people that are present in each parish (and, needless to say, their schedule).
The Protestant church I used to attend had only one, in comparison. Though there were a great many who attended it, it was only the one worship service.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that because of the huge size of the Catholic Church, not only will the errant ways of some of its members be more strikingly noticeable, but also, you’d have a greater number of such folks due to the sheer size of the Catholic Church in its members.
For example, say the world was comprised of only two nations.
Every continent in the world, except that of Europe, belonged to America; while all of Europe belonged to, well, Europe.
I betcha that you’d find more sinners in America than you would in Europe just due to the fact that America is comprised of so many peoples as compared to Europe in this scenario.
But, would that actually mean that America is the spawn of Satan and Europe is so holy because its numbers would seem fewer?
Esau,
I agree on all points. But our job isn’t to be good compared to other men, its to be good compared to the Gospel. Let’s say that when you weigh it out for all those factors Catholics are better than Protestants. So what. It doesn’t change the fact that the HUGE majority of Catholics don’t accept the Magisterium (I’d be willing to bet that a majority don’t even have a basic understanding of the Church’s teachings). And that’s not even getting into actually living what the Church teaches. I may nod my head in agreement with the Church, but I’m one of the last ones you’d want to point to as a Catholic role model.
These things are easy to see, I’m interested in why they happen. Most of us agree on the Truth here. We can all refute statements like the ones Brian K. made. The harder thing to examine is our own faults, but maybe we can learn by doing so.
doesn’t change the fact that the HUGE majority of Catholics don’t accept the Magisterium
I wouldn’t say that the Church was responsible for that.
I would be more inclined to say there are a great many secular as well as cultural reasons for this, especially in the context of our modern world today.
It can also be the reason why there are as many Protestants who likewise do not faithfully live out the Gospels as they should.
Besides all this, not having endured the hard lives of those who were before us, like the generation that endured the hardships of the world wars, kinda make us take for granted a great many things — like standing for something you believe in and one’s Faith.
In the world we live in today, the ‘self’ and ‘comfort’ are the capital notions by which we base our lives, it seems, for the most part.
Today, the ‘self’ is the world that all things must revolve around, and, thus, we must often obtain the best material comforts that can fulfill our needs as well as those other comforts that can make our lives even more enjoyable; that is, especially those that ease the burden of certain consequences and responsibilities that may end up weighing on us unnecessarily and prevent us from enjoying our lives, as it should be.
Like our hedonistic pursuit for sensual pleasures — I mean, why suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and not take advantage of such modern comforts like abortion? Why should an unwanted child inflict such an unnecessary burden on my life?
Man is made for such pleasures and have the right to enjoy life to its fullest!
Artificial contraceptives, for example, are nothing but a means to enjoy life to its fullest — both sexually and as a total human person!
This twisted notion of the “Pursuit of Happiness” becomes the Gospel by which many in the world live their lives today, unburdened by any sense of morality and, therefore, (at least, in their minds) truly “free”.
When the Gospel of Our Lord becomes an inconvenience and an obstacle which prevents us from living our lives as we would like to live it, the Gospel of ‘Self’ becomes the default setting by which many will live their lives today.
Thanks Esau, that gives me a lot to mull over. Any thoughts on how we can start to turn the trend around? It seems like the very thing that will cure it – the Gospel – is the thing our society has rejected.
Question: Should we expect that Catholics, on the whole, should be any different than the regular population? Today the average Catholic isn’t and it seems normal to us, but it’s a scandal for non-Catholics to look at the average Catholic and see that he’s pretty much the average American. Has it ever been different? Our history suggests that Catholics have at times stood out drastically from the culture around them. Or do we have selective memories and the best Catholics always carried the torch while the average Catholic is more a product of his time than the Gospel?
Brian,
Great questions there!
Any thoughts on how we can start to turn the trend around?
I don’t think you can — it’s man’s fallen nature.
If you think about it, although we might think we are freeing ourselves of the shackles that bind us via the Church and the morality it imposes on us by not heeding its teachings; on the other hand, we become shackled even further by an even greater appetite for sin that eminate from our fallen nature when we let loose our penchant for sin.
Has it ever been different?
Not really, when you consider the overall history of humanity.
There have always been awful Catholics just as there have been saintly ones as well.
The difference between the two is the former yields to the world while the latter holds on to the Teachings of Christ in spite of the world.
Great questions there!
I wish I was as good at answering the questions as I am at asking them. But I guess asking is a start.
It would be interesting to have statistics on, say, how many Baptists have a drink now and then, but that’s chasing rabbits…
I think one reason that there might seem to be more “nominal” Catholics than in some other denominations is that within the Protestant tradition, if you disagree with the doctrines of the church you are in, you just move to a different one where the beliefs align more closely with your own… or start your OWN church.
Catholicism carries a unique historical and cultural weight as well as a sense of authority that other churches just don’t have, so there is a strong compulsion to stay on, even when a person doesn’t accept many of the distinctive Catholic doctrines. They stay because of their family history, or whatever…
Also, troublemakers and dissenters know that they can gain a lot of notariety and find a willing audience if they claim to REALLY, TRULY be Catholic, but are merely trying to “reform” the Church, trying to drag it into the 21st century. I mean, a lesbian is just a lesbian, but if you claim to be a lesbian NUN, well that gets some attention. If such people were to just leave and form their own little conclaves, nobody would much care what they thought. Some group or other slamming the Pope is no big deal, necessarily… but a group of priests slamming the Pope is NEWS! Send a camera crew!
Once a group officially splits off, they lose their voice and become just another sect among many.
I have a thought on that.
Granted that (a) fallenness is a perennial part of the human condition, (b) there are obviously vibrant Catholic Christians, parishes, and dioceses, and (c) there are obviously lukewarm and marginal Protestant Christians, nevertheless it is possible that marginal and disaffected Catholics may make up a larger part of churchgoing Catholics than their marginal and disaffected counterparts among Protestantism.
It is also possible that some of this is imputable to failings and failures of Catholic leaders and of church members as a whole. Perhaps some sectors of Protestantism have simply succeeded better in this regard than American/Western Catholicism generally, and we Catholics would do well to learn from and imitate our separated brethren in some respects.
But I believe there is also another factor, one that is a plus for Catholicism. It is this:
Catholicism is sticky.
Catholic identity lingers. Those who consider themselves Catholic continue to do so long after their identification with the Catholic faith has become tenous and nominal, where their counterparts in Protestant churches would simply go home and not call themselves anything.
My wife and her two siblings were raised with a nominal Protestant faith, in an American Baptist church. Her brother and sister stopped going to church at a young age. Later in life, they never called themselves “Baptists,” “Protestants” or even “Christians.” Whereas their counterparts on the Catholic side would continue to call themselves Catholics, and possibly feel the tug of a few identity markers: fish on Fridays in Lent, church on Christmas, Easter, Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday.
There are a lot of marginal and nominal churchgoers in Catholic parishes all over the place. I’m not persuaded that it would be better if they stopped coming to church altogether so that those of us who were left could have more sparkling fellowship.
Jesus loves those unenthusiastic churchgoers, he died for them, and maybe, just maybe, he is saving their souls, as they participate in the Mass with what may seem to us less than notable spirituality. Perhaps their faith is more real than we might suspect; to their own Master they stand or fall.
The ironic thing is that in Protestant churches they have planning meetings and programs and suchlike devoted to something called “reaching the unchurched.” In Catholic churches, the “unchurched” stumble into Mass on a regular basis. If only the evangelical zeal of those Protestant planning meetings were there in the Catholic parishes to greet the “unchurched” when they arrived!
Think about it.
WOW! Great thoughts, SDG.
About SDG’s remark here:
Perhaps some sectors of Protestantism have simply succeeded better in this regard than American/Western Catholicism generally
I believe why there seems to be a greater level of success is because of what Tim J. had mentioned previously in his post:
within the Protestant tradition, if you disagree with the doctrines of the church you are in, you just move to a different one where the beliefs align more closely with your own
I mean, a lot of people seemed to love to switch to our Protestant church because, for one, we didn’t teach pre-marital sex as being something wrong or that even contraception was wrong.
There were many who were coming into our Protestant church because of the fact that their previous churches were actually against these things.
It’s much nicer (not to mention, easier on the conscience) when the Gospel you hear is one that suits your needs.
Can we just IGNORE John’s comments — especially on this thread???
We must consider those who first stumble on John here, or any topic. To leave him unanswered would make it look like he was unanswerable.
Mary,
this gives Tim J, SDG, and Jimmy the job of babysitting him continuously, so in order not to have him look ‘unanswerable’ (though I doubt anyone who visited this blog regularly would think this) the other sensible option would be to ban him from commenting. Jimmy, no doubt, has his own charitable reasons for not doing this, so anyone who takes on the babysitting job should feel free to stop when it becomes burdensome. The rest of us will figure out on our own that what he is saying is often nonsense.
We must consider those who first stumble on John here, or any topic. To leave him unanswered would make it look like he was unanswerable.
Mary,
You make excellent sense here, but given the present situation intimately connected with this particular topic, I believe that addressing those issues that quite often hinder most conversions to Catholicism and even a more genuine understanding of the Catholic Faith would be of greater benefit at this time.
God bless.
Well, you speak as one outside, as one not well aquainted – I would guess – with great numbers of sincere & devout Catholics (as, happily, I am). In addition, I don’t expect you are looking that hard or that sympathetrically for the Jesus-loving Catholics, and are likely overlooking to some extent the shallowness and hypocrisy characteristic of your own faith tradition.
I’m not saying that there aren’t Jesus-loving Catholics. There seems to be many of them. For one, I see that the people on here are such, but additionally I have in person met with Catholics who seem to really love the Lord. I’ve met Catholics face to face for whom it’d be sin for me to suppose that they don’t love God.
Now regarding your second accusation against me, that is, that I am to some extent overlooking the shallowness and hypocrisy of my own faith tradition, you simply presumed that. For I acknowledge that most of Protestantism in the US at this time seems to be very apostate. There is extreme doctrinal perversion, and it seems that pews across the country are occupied by reprobates. However in areas of great persecution, such as in China and the Middle East, Christ seems to be calling many to himself, who face death for their faith. Now regarding former days, going back in history, I’m sure, even during the great revivals in Europe and America, many were people were fake. Maybe even the majority. I don’t know. But I do know that many are called, but few are chosen, as the Lord said.
Additionally, I don’t represent everybody who calls himself a Protestant. If you want to know what I believe, I am a member of a PCA church, that is, Presbyterian Church in America, and concur with their doctrines. But I believe Christ’s Church is rather eclectic.
You’re confusing Catholicism with Catholics. Many Catholics are very poor representatives of Catholicism.
You have a good point. It may be that I blurred the line in my own thinking and writing. But what I was mainly outlining was why I referred to Roman Catholicism as a system, and not, as someone would later point out, as a vibrant faith. Originally I had posted a prayer that I made in which I prayed that Dr. Beckwith would find his way out of the system. I’m not praying that his faith would be made void, I’m praying that not only would he abandon Catholic doctrine, but that he would find a church wherein the majority of the members are Christians born of the Spirit. Maybe he is already at place like that. I just don’t know. But what I do know is that a lot of Catholic churches are filled with spiritually dead people. The same goes for the liberal Protestant denominations, and really any other church who is teaching false doctrine. I don’t know if he is in fellowship with believers or not. But what I do know is this: you show me a church where the doctrines of the reformed faith are faithfully preached by men who demonstrate the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives, and I’ll show you a church that will likely attract followers of Christ.
How many Americans vote regularly? Would you conclude from this that the American Ideal is bogus and bankrupt.
No, my conclusions regarding Rome are based on her teachings. But the terrible ungodliness displayed by her popes in the past, and all the abuses in the priesthood, and stuff like “Everytime a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from Purgatory springs,” all that kind of stuff, is stuff that doesn’t help convince one of the veracity of Rome’s doctrines.
The chiefest way Rome is found to be false is by simple comparison with the biblical texts. The secondary way is to look at her aweful history.
Mary,
Of course, your statement is worded “for the most part” so that you can dismiss any examples to the contrary as “the exception.”
I do word it like that, because that is how I make sense of what I see. From what I’ve observed, this seems to be an accurate understanding, and I expect to see this confirmed on the day of judgment. Now I’m fallible, so I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Esau,
Brian Kvic stated:
Not only this, but especially would I consider it dangerous to accuse the Saviour of having been behind all the corruption and wickedness that has come from the Catholic hierarchy throughout A.D. redemptive history.
There are many, many things wrong with this statement.
“Many, many”? You only gave me four, and the fourth doesn’t have anything to do with my statement or its implications. Are you aware of the term, “weasel words”?
For one (among others), who was actually accusing Jesus of this so-claimed corruption and wickedness???
That’s a good point. It was kind of an unfair statement I made, and I’d like to, if I am permitted, retract it. But really, what I was getting at is that you just don’t see Jesus behind the Catholic Church in history. In fact you see the opposite. Persecution of those who wish to translate and distribute the Bible
Mind you, the actions of various individuals are those of the individual himself.
Remember, Judas was an Apostle and, yet, he failed to live up to his high calling — the same thing can be said of certain Catholic clergy.
Good point. But doesn’t the sacrament of Order give one grace to lead a holy life? Correct me if I am wrong.
Second, what of the many saints and martyrs of the Catholic Church who actually devoted their lives to Christ and lived the Gospels so faithfully — and, in fact, sacrificed their very lives in the name of Christ?
The majority of martyrs were and are Protestants. Hundreds of men burned at the stake during the reign of Mary Tudor, for refusing to belief in the doctrines of the mass. Hundreds in China and elsewhere now. In the revivals occurring around the world today, in which God is pouring forth his Spirit, in areas of tough persecution, we have Protestants being martyred.
Sure there were Catholic martyrs. But they do not make up the norm.
Third, what of the many good that the Catholic Church has done in the world and how it was the very institution established by Christ and, in fact, not only selected the books that comprised the bible but preserved it all through the ages?
Everything you wrote is incorrect, except for the fact that the Catholic Church has done good. And that is mostly modernly. True, there is much humanitarian good being done now by Catholic charities and so forth. But that is not what has happened in history. Furthermore, the group of men who selected the books of the Bible are not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and today. And especially, Christ Jesus and the apostle Peter have absolutely nothing to do with the papal succession that began hundreds of years later, during which at times there were more than one pope claiming primacy.
Fourth, does this mean that Protestants have had such an excellent and spotless history?
My statement doesn’t imply that.
Brian Kvic:
Show me evidence of Protestant doctrine in the early Church, and I shall not only concede to your point that the Catholic system is all but abysmal darkness; but will unshackle myself of the Tyranny of Rome!
But, it would seem that you would be more afraid to take up this endeavor and to thoroughly investigate what the early Church really was like — and I could tell you it was more Catholic than it was Protestant!
I’ve read on Catholic Answers Jimmy’s attempt to make the fathers say what he wants them to have said. I’m acquainted with the way in which Catholic apologists practice eisegesis with respect to quotes of the fathers.
“It would seem that you would be more afraid….” Why would it seem that way? Because the texts of the fathers really proclaim a Roman Catholic doctrinal foundation? “More Catholic than it was Protestant?”
I don’t know if you have actually investigated the texts yourself, or if you are just relying on Catholic apologists or other Catholic sources. Either 1) you are deliberately trying to deceive regarding what the bulk of the fathers have said, 2) you are just going on what you’ve heard them to have said, or 3) have actually studied these things and come to wrong conclusions by wishful thinking. In any case, God is not fooled concerning what the majority of the fathers of our faith believed.
Sorry, I didn’t add my name
Esau,
That quote by Justin Martyr does seem to indicate that he believed in the real presence. When I have more time I’ll have to look into that.
Those quotes by the apostle Paul are true independent of whether one chooses the reformed or Catholic understanding.
Esau,
You make some interesting points about the view of the fathers on the Lord’s Supper, and you’ve sparked my curiosity. I’ll have to look into that more thoroughly. While it’s true that papists try to contrue the fathers’ texts to support the papacy when there hadn’t even been a papacy, perhaps what you say concerning the Lord’s Supper is true.
Brian,
We can all refute statements like the ones Brian K. made.
Don’t flatter yourself.
See my above treatment of his refutation.
Mary,
Of course, your statement is worded “for the most part” so that you can dismiss any examples to the contrary as “the exception.”
I do word it like that, because that is how I make sense of what I see. From what I’ve observed, this seems to be an accurate understanding, and I expect to see this confirmed on the day of judgment. Now I’m fallible, so I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Brian, responding to this post of yours, first Mary and I (Mary Kay) are two different people.
Second, thank you for proving my point. You did indeed acknowledge that there were “some” Jesus Catholics, “some” who were martyred, “some” who did charitable works, but you protest, “they were not the norm.” Again, thank you for proving my point that you would dismiss any examples as not the norm.
Granted, that may be indeed how you see it. Has it occurred to you that perhaps you don’t have the full picture? I’ll come back to that.
Third, notice how everything you say is couched in your interpretation. Does it really boil down to your interpretation versus my interpretation versus some third person’s interpretation? What makes your interpretation the “right” one?
Fourth, back to the full picture. You’ve made so many inaccurate statements, it’s hard to know where to start but tomorrow (I won’t have access to a computer for the rest of today), I’ll randomly pick on and provide some additional information.
Brian K, thanks for commenting with such detailed responses. I don’t know if I have time to post today, but I appreciate your thought-out, researched points.
Ok, maybe I’ve got time for one comment. You said your conclusions regarding Rome are based on her teachings, the terrible things Catholics have done over the years only help to show how flawed those teachings are. What are some of the teachings you disagree with? I’m sure the people around here would love to discuss them (as well as the the historical issues you’ve mentioned).
Brain,
What did you make of Esau’s note of JND Kelley? He seems to be a pretty trustworthy reference–unbiased and respected.
Regarding the Early Church Fathers, as I recently pointed out, I went through Jurgens’ three volume set, “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, and highlighted the specifically Catholic teachings in their writings, and, in the 3 volumes, went through 3 highlighters. I again urge those who wish to remain Protestant to avoid the Fathers, especially St. Irenaeus and St. Cyprian of Carthage.
“you just don’t see Jesus behind the Catholic Church in history.”
Umm, yes – actually you do.
“The majority of martyrs were and are Protestants”
That’s just factually false. By far, most Christians throughout history have been Catholic, and the vast majority of martyrs were Catholics, too, including those tortured and murdered by Protestant regimes.
Let’s review: The subject of this thread if the conversion of Doc Beckwith to the faith.
Mary Kay,
Second, thank you for proving my point. You did indeed acknowledge that there were “some” Jesus Catholics, “some” who were martyred, “some” who did charitable works, but you protest, “they were not the norm.” Again, thank you for proving my point that you would dismiss any examples as not the norm.
Yes, I was agreeing with you and affirming that what you said is an accurate representation of how I view these things. The reason I dismiss them as not the norm is because they’re not the norm. That is, I am simply acknowledging the fact that yes their are Catholics who love Jesus (how, I don’t know), and yes, there were Catholic martyrs (a handful in comparison to those martyred by the Catholic Church), and as far as charitable works, there’s an enormous amount of charitable works being done by Catholics, maybe even more than Protestants. I don’t know the figures. The Catholic Church is certainly much bigger. But then when we make comparisons we have to make generalizations about Protestantism which are really unfair. Sure, their are plenty of good works done by Catholics. They may be dead works. What’s the motivation? When I do a good work, I seek to do it (and I pray for my motivation to be) out of gratitude for Jesus Christ having paid the full penalty of my sin, and also simply because God commands it, and He’s holy. But I don’t do it to contribute to my justification. Christ said It is finished.
Third, notice how everything you say is couched in your interpretation. Does it really boil down to your interpretation versus my interpretation versus some third person’s interpretation? What makes your interpretation the “right” one?
That’s a good question, and I don’t really know how to answer it other than that I think my interpretations on these matters for the most part (I’m sure I’m getting something wrong) are fair and are not based on wishful thinking. I certainly don’t have any claims to being infallible, but I do have the Holy Spirit as a gift from God. When I read the Bible, I find it speaks to me in a way that no other book does, and I find that God always brings me back to repentence no matter how grievously I sinned, because he has loved me since the foundation of the world. Having that assurance is biblical by the way, despite what The Council of Trent asserted, and I can prove the same by many Scriptures.
And as a side note, I have nothing against tradition. I hold to an historic faith, I’ll claim the faith of the apostles, along with many great theologians I’ve read, from whom I’ve learned so much.
But I guess I can say this thing: I can appeal to my conscience. I know in my heart that I’m not trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes here. I may be prideful at times, I may be sloppy in my thinking at times, but I believe what I say in a clear conscience. But isn’t the heart deceitful? Of course the heart is deceitful. Clearly if you Mary Kay sincerely believe Catholic doctrine, then either one of us or both of us is sincerely deceived.
“yes, there were Catholic martyrs (a handful in comparison to those martyred by the Catholic Church)”
Brian, that is just a patent, demonstrable and obvious falsehood. Not that there is any kind of contest, but Catholic martyrs FAR outnumber Protestant ones, by any reckoning that is not rank fantasy.
Mary Kay,
Fourth, back to the full picture. You’ve made so many inaccurate statements, it’s hard to know where to start but tomorrow (I won’t have access to a computer for the rest of today), I’ll randomly pick on and provide some additional information.
I’m sorry to have to burden you in that matter.
By the way, Boettner counts as rank fantasy.
Perhaps your confusion lies in thinking that the faith you hold now is the same as that held by the apostles and the early Church, which is incorrect.
The early Church was Catholic, and the martyrs who died at the hands of the Romans were Catholic, too. The Christians of the Catacombs were Catholic. The Protestant faith is a novelty, an invention, an artifact of the 16th century and the natural result of the so-called Enlightenmet which rejected God and Godly authority.
Brian,
Brian K, thanks for commenting with such detailed responses. I don’t know if I have time to post today, but I appreciate your thought-out, researched points.
I appreciate your comment. It did take some time to write what I wrote. I hadn’t really intended to jump into any discussions like this. It’s just that Esau posted a comment that I made at another location. But oh well.
As far as my points being thought-out and researched, I did put a lot of thought into this stuff, but the research is a little lacking. Because of time constraints, several statements I had made were not even researched by myself, but only I was trusting the authority of god-fearing men. For instance, Tim J. seems to have detected an error:
That’s just factually false. By far, most Christians throughout history have been Catholic, and the vast majority of martyrs were Catholics, too, including those tortured and murdered by Protestant regimes.
So I’ll have to research this to see if Tim is speaking the truth. I’m frankly kind of doubtful as to where he gets this idea, but we’ll see.
I hold to an historic faith, I’ll claim the faith of the apostles
Prove it —
Show me evidence that Protestant doctrines did, in fact, exist in the early Christian church.
Before you even claim this, you must first know what the historic church actually looked like!
Here’s some of my biblical as well as patristic proofs for the Eucharist, which is only one of many of the common denominators that exist between the Catholic Church and the early Christian church:
Jn 6:54:
54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Acts 2:42:
42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.
1 Cor 10:17:
17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.
1 Cor 11:26:
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1 Cor 11:27:
27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
Ignatius of Antioch (circa AD 110)
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:1-8:2
(Ancient Christian Writers Volume I, pages 92f)
Let no one be deceived! Even the heavenly powers and the angels in their splendor and the principalities, both visible and invisible, must either believe in the Blood of Christ, or else face damnation. Let him grasp it who can. Let no rank puff up anyone; for faith and love are paramount the greatest blessings in the world. Observe those who hold erroneous opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty.
From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.
You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.
Ignatius of Antioch (circa AD 110)
Letter to the Romans 7,3
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.
Ignatius of Antioch (circa AD 110)
Letter to the Philadephians 3,3 – 4
Do not err, my brethren,: if anyone follow a schismatic he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care then to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.
St. Justin Martyr (circa AD 150)
The First Apology Chapter 66a
(The Fathers of the Church: a New Translation Volume 6, pages 104ff)
We call this food the Eucharist, of which only he can partake who has acknowledged the truth of our teachings, who has been cleansed by baptism for the remission of his sins and for his regeneration, and who regulates his life upon the principles laid down by Christ. Not as ordinary bread or as ordinary drink do we partake of them, but just as, through the word of God, our Savior Jesus Christ became Incarnate and took upon Himself flesh and blood for our salvation, so, we have been taught, the food which has been made the Eucharist by the prayer of His word, and which nourishes our flesh and blood by assimilation, is both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. The Apostles in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, have handed down what Jesus ordered them to do; that He took bread and, after giving thanks, said: “Do this in remembrance of Me; this is My body.” In like manner, He took also the chalice, gave thanks, and said: “This is My blood”; and to them only did He give it….
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (circa AD 165)
Adversus Haereses Book 4, ch. 18, s. 5
Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned.(4) But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.(5) For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread,(6) but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
St. John Chrysostrom (circa 390)
Homily 46 (commenting on John 6)
Therefore, in order that we may become of His Body, not in desire only, but also in very fact, let us become commingled with that Body. This, in truth, takes place by means of the food which He has given us as a gift, because He desire to prove the love which He has for us. It is for this reason that He shared Himself with us and has brought His Body down to our level, namely, that we might be one with Him as the body is joined with the head. This, in truth is characteristic of those who greatly love. Job, indeed, was implying this when he said of his servants–by whom he was loved with such an excess of love–that they desired to cleave to his flesh. In giving expression to the great love which they possessed, they said: `Who will give us of his flesh that we may be filled?’ Moreover, Christ has done even this to spur us on to even greater love. And to show the love He has for us He has made it possible for those who desire, not merely to look upon Him, but even to touch Him and to consume Him and to fix their teeth in His Flesh and to be commingled with Him; in short, to fulfill all their love. Let us, then, come back from that table like lions breathing out fire, thus becoming terrifying to the Devil, and remaining mindful of our Head and of the love which He has shown for us.
Brian,
Teachings I disagree with:
The real presence in the Eucharist; the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice; that Mary should be venerated; that images are okay, especially images of Christ, especially images of the risen Christ (now I actually don’t know what the Church teaches with regard to this, I just know I’ve seen them, and I see them in Protestant sects too, in both cases, much to my horrer); purgatory; papal authority; claims about the early church having been Roman Catholic; that John chaper 3 “You must be born of water and of the Spirit has anything to do with baptism; that baptism does any saving work whatsoever; justification is not by faith alone; calling the pontiff “Holy Father”; that no one can have assurance of salvation; I may be forgetting something.
Some of the above aren’t so much teachings as practices, but I consider the fact that they are allowed to teach something about what the Catholic Chruch believes and accepts.
Esau, wow I don’t have the time right now to say anymore, but one quick comment.
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Consider compare these texts with the rest of Christ’s teachings. For example, with: I am the True Vine (he who abides on me my father prunes…etc, which is obviously symbolic, I am the Shepherd’s Gate, obviously symbolic, truly I say to you, if you say to this mountain, be removed… and so on.
Joe P,
What did you make of Esau’s note of JND Kelley? He seems to be a pretty trustworthy reference–unbiased and respected.
I have to look into that.
Jesus’ disciples took Him literally in John 6. That is why many of them said: “This is a hard saying.” Instead of telling them: “You’re taking Me literally when I was speaking symbolically, Jesus repeated Himself. Some of His disciples walked away (the only account in the Gospels of someone leaving Jesus for doctrinal reasons). Jesus let them go. They had to have understood Him correctly, or He Who claimed to be the Truth would have been morally obligated to correct their error. He allowed their belief that He was speaking literally to stand. They understood Him correctly: that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, “for My Flesh is real Food and My Blood is real Drink”.
I think the Dr. Beckwith conversion thread is a fine place to discuss general reasons why Protestants do or don’t convert to Catholicism.
OTOH, since I’ve asked John to back off, and he has complied with my request, it’s not fair for others to continue to discuss him. We’ve all had our say on that subject, and it’s time to move on.
Since many of us who undertook a “simple comparison with the biblical texts” wound up becoming Catholic, this method may not be as reliable as you think.
As for the second way, I have two things to say.
First, certainly there are horror shows in the history of the Catholic Church. That is hardly surprising. There were horror shows in the history of the Old Testament People of God; the prophets went so far as to say that Israel made the pagan nations and even Sodom and Gomorrah look righteous by comparison.
Among the successors to Peter, there have been a few bad apples, but among the successors to King David there were only a few good ones. Yet the Davidic monarchy was divinely instituted, along with the Aaronic priesthood, the Levitical sacrifices, and the Temple of Solomon, despite the many abuses associated with all these institutions.
Second, if you are going to invoke the horror shows, you must also deal with the heroism and holiness, not to mention the grace and divine providence. It’s almost providentially ironic that the objection above speaks of the “aweful” history (rather than the intended word “awful”), for awe is indeed appropriate when contemplating the workings of the Holy Spirit in the 2000-year history of the Catholic Church.
First of all, I find that by several measures the early church was demonstrably Catholic from the earliest centuries. Among other things, from the beginning the Church was governed by bishops who reigned in place of the apostles, God was worshipped in liturgy and sacrament, priests offered the perpetual eucharistic sacrifice, and baptism washed away original sins and gave new birth in Christ. (I prescind here from the Catholic-Orthodox controversy and the Petrine office, a subject for another time.)
It was in this Catholic Church that the canon of scripture was discerned, debated, settled, ratified, established. As I see it, arguments about the role of councils and synods versus a gradual and decentralized grass-roots process of discernment are irrelevant: the Church at the grass-roots level was just as Catholic as the councils and synods; the gatherings in which the scriptures were read were liturgical, eucharistic, sacrificial, sacerdotal.
It was in this Catholic Church that the theology of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the dual natures of Christ was articulated, explored, formulated, and codified. It was the Catholic Church that gave us the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed.
It was the Catholic Church that produced Athanasius, Aquinas, Augustine, Catherine of Siena, Clare of Assisi, Ephrem the Syrian, Francis of Assisi, John Chrysostom, John of the Cross, Patrick, Theresa of Avila, Theresa of Lisieux and a host of others whose luminous example continues to inspire countless Christians of all stripes today.
It was the Catholic Church that produced the luminous traditions of iconography, Palestrina, Gregorian chant, and some of the most sublime and majestic architecture, art, literature and music the world has ever seen. The Catholic Church has a long and distinguished track record as a patron of the sciences, of art and culture, of learning and scholarship. Thomas Woods in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization makes good reading in this vein.
For centuries before there were any Protestants, Catholics spread the faith, Catholic missionaries brought the Gospel to foreign lands, Catholic scholars labored to preserve and perpetuate the scriptures. The first Christians to produce vernacular editions of scripture were Catholics: the Latin Vulgate, the early vernacular editions in Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic, various Anglo-Saxon translations including the Wessex Gospels and the editions of Bede and King Alfred, the various German versions preceding Luther’s, etc.
In the twentieth century, the Catholic Church led the way on life issues like abortion long before Protestants were on board, and the Catholic Church continues to be a dominant force in the defense of life. The Catholic Church recently produced the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one of the most outstanding and thorough statements of the Christian faith in the 20th century and beyond.
None of this is to gloss over or minimize the abuses, scandals and other offenses that have marked the Church’s 2000-year history. It is simply to say that a thorough and balanced at Rome’s “awful” — and aweful — history is hardly a reliable route to debunking the Church and her claims.
Good point. But doesn’t the sacrament of Order give one grace to lead a holy life? Correct me if I am wrong.
No. Holy Orders makes a man a priest
They understood Him correctly: that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, “for My Flesh is real Food and My Blood is real Drink”.
Then why didn’t anyone start munching away right then and there?
that images are okay, especially images of Christ, especially images of the risen Christ (now I actually don’t know what the Church teaches with regard to this, I just know I’ve seen them, and I see them in Protestant sects too, in both cases, much to my horrer);
Would you have reacted in horror to the brass serpent as well?
Or the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant?
“Then why didn’t anyone start munching away right then and there?”
This is quite offensive. Christ (body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity comes to us in Sacramentally in communion, not in his visible physical self to be canibalized.
Secondly, ‘is’ was a word that was not employed in Jesus’ native tongue except for when used to emphasize something. (for example: “this is my body.) Jesus emphasized that what had the accidents (appearences) of bread IS really His body.
Consider on the contrary the following crucial differences between John 6 and the figurative passages you mention.
First, in contrast to the passages you mention, in which Jesus used metaphors to clearly communicate his meaning, in Jesus’ saying in John 6 gave offense, and even turned away many who were following him. Nobody was turned away or took offense by Jesus’ sayings about being a vine or a shepherd. Those sayings were metaphorical, and understood to be metaphorical.
I can think of one case in which Jesus’ use of figurative language was offensive to some who did not understand his figure, though not to his followers: in John 2, where he said “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will rebuild it.” In John 6, though, the situation is quite different: Jesus’ saying costs him many followers. There is no evidence in John 2 of anyone who was following Jesus taking offense at his words.
Jesus’ words in John 6 are also notably stronger than in John 2. His words in John 2 were a single sentence; in John 6 he goes on and on for verses and verses about the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He even goes so far as to say “My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”
This is remarkable language, especially under the circumstances. We don’t usually find him saying things like “I am a door indeed” or “You are salt indeed,” particularly when there was danger of misinterpretation. He certainly didn’t call his body “a temple indeed” in John 2. It’s almost like he’s going out of his way to ensure tell his scandalized listeners, “Don’t allegorize this away — I mean precisely what I say.”
Then, look at what he said when the crowd grumbled, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Jesus’ response: “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending where He was before?”
What does this mean? He was comparing His present “hard saying” to another one: the prophecy of His Ascension. This, of course, is no figure or metaphor, but cold, historical, corporeal fact. Who knows what His hearers made of it? Probably no more than the Twelve were able to make of His repeated predictions of His Crucifixion and Resurrection. Perhaps they supposed He was speaking in figures; He did it often enough. (Remember the passage where they discussed among themselves “what rising from the dead might mean”? In this case it seems that Jesus literal saying was taken as a possible figure.)
But one Friday — and then again that Sunday — and yet again forty days later — his disciples saw just how matter-of-factly literal Jesus Christ could be. He was crucified and resurrected in the body, and He also “ascended where He was before” in that same body.
And that is what Jesus reached for to qualify His teaching about eating that same body. If He meant His followers, looking back upon His words, to understand them figuratively, He could not have chosen a more misleading approach.
The clincher, though, is what Jesus says to his own disciples. The reason this is so crucial is that elsewhere in the Gospels, when Jesus spoke in metaphorical language and was misunderstood by his literal-minded disciples, he immediately clarified himself to them. He never left them laboring in confusion over his meaning where metaphors were the problem — only when he was speaking literally, and it was that which confused them.
For instance, when his disciples misunderstood the saying about the “leaven of the scribes and Pharisees” (“It is because we have no bread”), he immediately pointed out that literal bread was hardly an issue for him. Did they not remember the feeding of the 5,000? How could they fail to understand that he was not speaking of literal bread? And so they realized that it was the teaching, not literal bread, that he was speaking of.
Likewise, when he spoke of Lazarus being asleep, and “they thought he meant taking his rest in sleep” (“Master, if he is sleeping, he will surely recover”), Jesus immediately said plainly, “Lazarus is dead.”
In fact, Mark 4:34 tells us that while to the crowds Jesus spoke in parables, “privately he explained everything to his own disciples.” That settles it. Jesus might baffle the Pharisees with some strange saying about raising up the temple; but whether or not he might perplex shallow followers with extravagant language about eating and drinking his flesh and blood, to his own disciples he would explain the true meaning, as he did everything.
But in fact when Jesus turns from the crowds as they abandon him to the twelve, all He has to say is: “Do you also wish to go away?” Mark Shea has written perceptively on this point:
So it’s not very persuasive just to say “Jesus used figurative language a lot.” He also meant exactly what he said a lot, and there are a number of important clues in John 6 that he meant exactly what he said.
“So it’s not very persuasive just to say ‘Jesus used figurative language a lot.’ He also meant exactly what he said a lot…”
Nice job, SDG.
It would be too easy to say, “When Jesus called himself the Son of God, he was only speaking figuratively…”.
What John 6 makes clear is that Jesus isn’t talking about eating a weekly wafer. He said, “He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life.”
What the people were grumbling about was his claim that he came from heaven. “How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
What John 6 makes clear is that Jesus isn’t talking about eating a weekly wafer.
That must explain why all Christians in the early Christian church believed in the Eucharist!
Of course, we would know better than them — even if they were taught personally by the Apostles themselves!
In fact, if you look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, nobody disagreed about the Eucharist. Everyone believed in the Eucharist. For example, you have a case of St. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, when he uses the Eucharist against the Gnostics. In Against Heresies, he basically says to the Gnostics, “You don’t make sense – you’re ordaining priests and you’re saying Masses and you’re declaring the words our priests say, ‘This is My Body’, but you don’t believe Jesus even had a body and, thus, you don’t make sense!”
What’s very interesting to note is that even with some of the heretics back then, at least, in some sense, they had some sort of quasi-understanding of the Eucharist. My point is you don’t have folks during those times disagreeing about the Eucharist even when it came to the heretics since all Christians everywhere at the time actually believed in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.
It wouldn’t be up until the 11th century with Berengarius where you had a serious sort of denial of the Eucharist and that’s why you have an explosion there in the 11th Century; an in-depth development of our teaching of the Eucharist and, of course, Transubstantiation, would then be defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.
Now, was it really Jesus’ intention and the Apostles’ for us to understand that “Do this in memory of me” meant to do this thing – that the bread and wine really, really becomes changed when Jesus said “This is My Body, This is My Blood”; that that’s supposed to be taken somehow in a realistic way? That we’re not just remembering Jesus; that it’s just not a sign that points us back to what he did but that we’re actually receiving him intimately? Is that what the Apostles intended? So how do we find that out?
Well, one way to do it is simply to look again at the earliest Christian teachers. I’ll give you another example: Ignatius of Antioch, 2nd Bishop of Antioch after Peter and Paul left there. He’s writing around the year 110 AD on his way to martyrdom and one of the things he said – he talks about people who deny that Jesus truly was human. There are people uncomfortable with God getting mixed up with flesh and blood and he pointed out that people also refused to accept the Eucharist and he says clearly that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ and those who fail to appreciate it, to accept it, will incur condemnation – a very strong statement.
A few years later in Rome, Christians are accused of cannibalism by the Romans because the Romans heard something about them getting together every week and eating the flesh and blood of the man Christus. That’s what the Romans heard. Now, that tells you that the Eucharist was central to the lives of the early Christians back then and that they never would have heard that kind of rumour. Justin Martyr even responds to the Romans. He writes his First Apology and clarifies what Christians really do. Instead of simply telling the Romans that they’re not a bunch of cannibals; that is, “no, no, no – you misinterpret us; we’re just doing this symbolically — this is just symbolism”.
Instead, he explains the Eucharist wherein after the words of Jesus Christ are repeated, they’re no longer bread and wine, but really the body and blood of Christ. That the early Christians take them to be transformed and changed into the body and blood of Christ.
Now, that’s 155 AD. Furthermore, you find this everywhere amongst all those of the early Christian church – remember, we’re talking about the consensus of the Fathers. There is nowhere that you’ll find in the writings of the Fathers of the early church anything but a realistic interpretation of the Eucharist; that this is, in some way, truly the body and blood of Christ.
This is why the great early Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly, a Protestant, even admitted:
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
What John 6 makes clear is that Jesus is talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The mode in which this would take place has been sovereignly determined by him, when he said, “Take and eat, this is my body… Drink this, all of you, this is my blood.”
In verse 42, yes. But ten verses later they were grumbling, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
It was this teaching, not the other, of which they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” It was for this teaching that many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. And it was over this teaching that Jesus turned even to the twelve and said, “Do you also wish to go away?”
I would like to commend both SDG and Esau for their most recent comments. They are very clear explanations of the reality of the Eucharist and the central belief of the early Christians in that reality.
I encourage those who do not accept the reality of the Eucharist – and especially those Catholics with doubts – to read these last few comments and prayerfully ponder them.
Cajun Nick beat me to it, thanking SDG and Esau for their comments.
I’m sorry to have to burden you in that matter
Brian K, so who said it’s a burden? If it were easier to tease in a combox, I’d tell you to put a little less stock in your interpretation if that’s an example.
Someplace in the above posts, you said that yes, there were some Catholic martyrs, but they “weren’t the norm.” I can’t even write that sentence without an eyeroll.
The following examples are a very random sampling from the Church calendar:
Let’s start with Reformation era Thomas Becket who was killed in the cathedral in 1170.
Moving to my area, upstate NY and southern Ontario, for the North American martyrs, known in popular culture as the Blackrobes (I don’t know how accurate the movie is). Six priests:
St. Jean de Brebeuf – who wrote the first American Christmas carol, The Huron Carol, written in the language of the Hurons
and two laymen who were martyred from 1642 to 1649, after brutal torture.
In Vietnam, Fr. Andrew Dung-Lac was one of 117 priests and laypeople killed for their Catholic faith between 1820 and 1862.
In Korea, Fr. Kim Taegon was one of 113 martyrs, priests and laypeople, martyred bewteen 1839 and 1846.
In Uganda, St. Charles Lwanga was one of 22 martyrs in 1886.
In Japan, St. Lawrence Ruiz was one of 16 martyrs from 1633 through 1637.
In Mexico, Fr. Miguel Autustin Pro was killed in 1927.
In China, Fr. Augustine Zhao Rong was one of 120 martyred in 1815.
Not in the calendar is Fr. Jerzy Popieluszko, a Polish priest killed in 1984.
Actually, all you have to do is look at today’s news. The nun who was shot in the back of the head recently. If you read the http://www.zenit.org news site, there are periodic reports of priests killed or missing in Latin America or China.
That’s just a brief listing from readily available sources.
What John 6 makes clear is that Jesus is talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
But not a weekly wafer.
But ten verses later they were grumbling, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
As in: what is this man really saying, as obviously he’s not talking about people munching on his arms and toes for not even his 12 apostles were doing that nor was anyone snacking on wheat wafers.
And you know this exactly how? You’re emoting, not thinking or arguing.
So Jesus’ hearers were all clear that he couldn’t possibly literally mean what he said, that it had to be some sort of parable or figure of speech? Then, that must be why they all took offense and said, “This is a hard saying, who can accept it?” and fell away from following they had been about to make their king. Because they really, really disliked metaphors.
And that must be why, when Jesus challenged even the twelve if they wanted to leave too, Peter said, “Lord, why would we do that? We know it was only a metaphor.” Right?
No. Peter’s plaintive response was, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.” In other words, “We certainly understand why the others left. We have no idea what you’re talking about either. But we have no choice but to stay — not because we’re in the know here, but because there just isn’t anywhere else to go, anyone else to go to. You’re the only game in town.”
No, Jesus hadn’t yet given his flesh and blood to be eating and drunk. You do realize the wheat came later, though, right? What you dismissively call “snacking on wheat wafers,” the NT calls “the breaking of bread,” “the table of the Lord,” and so on. It’s kind of a notable theme, the whole “snacking on wheat” thing.
In John 6 Jesus taught the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. How and when this eating and drinking would take place, he didn’t specify. His disciples had no idea what he was talking about at the time, any more than they knew what to make of his predictions of his passion, resurrection and ascension. Not until he gave them his flesh and blood to eat and drink, and commissioned them to do this, and the promised Holy Spirit came to empower them to carry own his commission, was Jesus’ meaning truly clear.
It all seems so…interesting.
Brick,
As in: what is this man really saying, as obviously he’s not talking about people munching on his arms and toes for not even his 12 apostles were doing that nor was anyone snacking on wheat wafers.
Matt 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Luke 24:30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31: And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.
35: Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
As SDG has stated very well, Our Lord is very clear in His meaning and the Church has accepted His words and continues to do as He asked “Do this in remembrance of Me”. And the Church does this daily and continually in fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi.
Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Thanks for citing this text, Inocencio — it’s significant for two reasons.
First, in the early Church this reference to a “pure offering” being made “in every place” among “the nations” (goyim, Gentiles) was universally understood as a prophecy of the Eucharist.
Second, in Malachi 1 the altar of the Old Testament sacrifices is repeatedly called “the Lord’s table,” both before and after verse 11. And this same language of “the table of the Lord” recurs in the NT — in 1 Corinthians 10, where it refers to the Eucharist, and where the Eucharist is the Christian analog of the sacrifice-meal rituals of both the Jews and the pagans.
The triple parallel in 1 Cor 10 is clear: The people of Israel eat the sacrifices of the altar, and become sharers in the altar. The pagans eat and drink from the table of demons and the cup of demons, i.e., sacrifices offered to demons, and thus become sharers with demons. And Christians eat and drink from the table of the Lord and the cup of the Lord, i.e., the Eucharist, and thus become sharers in body and blood of Christ.
The table of the Lord and the cup of the Lord are the Christian counterpart or analog to the sacrifice-meals of the Israelites and the pagans. St. Paul even calls it “the table of the Lord,” associating it with the Jewish altar of sacrifice as mentioned in Malachi 1, which includes that remarkable verse about a pure offering being made in every place among the Gentiles.
The Eucharist, the “table of the Lord,” is the Christian sacrifice-meal.
“Christian sacrifice-meal”
It sounds so progressivist.
However true, saying things like that over emphasize the “meal” and not the Sacrifice.
This leads to the kumbaya mentality that plagues the faithful today. It overemphazises comunity and not God. That leads to going to Church and the Sacraments like a talisman and is extremely egocentric.
That is my take on saying the those things.
(and the use of “Christian”is not commendable because of the bad connotations. Use Catholic.)
Bread. It’s a nice metaphor.
Eucharist… from the Greek eukharistia, meaning “thanksgiving, gratitude.”
Brick, using your logic, why wasn’t Jesus just speaking metaphorically when he called himself the “Son of God”?
It’s a nice metaphor.
SDG:
Very good, very clear work in the Eucharist. If you ever write a book on this, I’ll be happy to design the cover. 🙂
Also, thanks for your patience with Jeb. One of the many nice things about being Catholic is that you can drop your terror of ever ever *ever* admitting you are wrong. The theological project does not begin and end with you and, if you screw up, it doesn’t mean that Everything You Know Is Wrong. Jeb adamantine resolve to never, under any circumstances, admit the slightest mistake is persuasive only to Jeb. That is, I suppose, sufficient if you are adherent of a denomination of one like Jeb. But if you seriously wish to persuade anybody else (you know, in obedience to that whole “make disciples of all nations” thing) then learning a smidge of humility is, in addition to being rather important to salvation, also important in being persuasive.
Some Day, I think the Magisterium would disagree with you on the wisdom of avoiding the term “Christian.” Try searching on “Christian” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Or look through the decrees of Vatican II, or any other authoritative source you choose. “Christian” is our name, and we must not surrender it. I’m going to stick with the Magisterium — and the New Testament — on this one.
Second, how can mentioning both sacrifice and meal “overemphasize” one over the other? That’s like saying that “One God in three Persons” overemphasizes the threeness over the oneness. Even to say such a thing suggests an exaggerated concern for part of the truth over against other parts, which is the very hallmark of heresy (picking and choosing, a fragmentary outlook) over the integral wholeness and comprehensiveness of the Catholic faith.
Some sacrifices are to be eaten, others aren’t. The word “sacrifice” alone is insufficient to express the idea of a sacrifice that is eaten versus one that is not. St. Paul speaks in 1 Cor 10 about “the table of the Lord” and “the cup of the Lord,” which is first and foremost the language of repast, and only secondarily the language of sacrifice.
I am sorry if some of the biblical, magisterial, and traditional language of our faith seems too “Protestant” or “progressivist” to you, but I am not ready to surrender these terms to Protestants or progressivists on that account.
Heh. Why would I write a book? If it ain’t broke… (Why do you think I quoted you, anyway? You made the point with such precision and succinctness I don’t see why anyone need bother formulating that exact point ever again.)
This is very charitable of you, buddy, both to me and to Jeb. But in the first place, I didn’t realize I had been patient with Jeb. 🙂 In the second place, I don’t think I dropped my terror at ever admitting I was wrong only when I became a Catholic. I think even as a Protestant I was willing to admit my mistakes and screw-ups, and I think Jeb should be too. (Of course, now that you mention it, that could have something to do with my having eventually become Catholic…!)
Esau-
I happen to read J. N. D. Kelly quite a bit and I must say that the way you are quoting him–it would seem as if you are correct.
However having read that book several times a couple of years ago-I knew for a fact that I would remember such a quote.
The fact is, that particular quote comes from a chapter of the book entitled “The LATER Doctrine of the Sacraments”.
Notice first —the title.
Next, let me begin at the beginning of this paragraph to properly understand what is being said…”In examining the ‘LATER’ doctrine of the eucharist, it will be convenient , as in Chapter VIII, to begin with the ideas currently entertained about the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. Eucharist teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestionably realist,ie. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be , and were treated and designated as, the Saviour’s body and blood.” (emphasis mine).
Now we can better and fully understand that the quote is DESCRIPTIVE of LATER development of the eucharist–not PRESCRIPTIVE in nature.
Nothing in the passage even intimates that J. N. D. Kelly is making that statement in Theological agreement. Again he is merely DESCRIBING.
If you are to keep reading this chapter, you will see how even at this “later” time – there were those in the Church who still taught otherwise, and he gives a list of their names.
Erick,
1. Your emphasis on Kelly’s “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive” discussion seems beside the point — we know Kelly is telling us only what the early Fathers said, not what he himself thinks we should believe. That indeed is at least in part the ostensible value of his witness — he is describing objectively, not spinning to apologetical purpose. That is precisely why the apologetical value of his witness is so striking.
2. In stressing Kelly’s topic of “the later doctrine of the sacraments,” you fail to mention that the “later” here is fourth to fifth century. We’re still talking quite early. Furthermore, Kelly does not draw a huge disjunction between the “earlier” doctrine and the “later” doctrine. The “later” teachings he surveys are essentially continuations of earlier lines of thoughts. It’s not like his account of the earlier doctrine was notably or strikingly different in this regard.
3. It seems somewhat misleading to say that Kelly gives a list of names of those who taught “otherwise.” What he says is that among theologians the general “realism” of the Eucharistic elements as Jesus’ actual body and blood was subject to different interpretations — but he also says that these different interpretations overlapped, so it’s not like these different interpretations were necessarily understood as rival views.
In this regard, crucially, what Kelly does not mention, and what AFAIK did not exist, was any clear sense of a teaching that was truly “otherwise” than the realist sacramental view, i.e., any sense of anyone in any way controverting the widely held and confessed idea that the bread and wine actually is the body and blood of Christ. Different theologians had different takes on the teaching, but to the best of my knowledge the most direct and explicit realism was completely uncontroversial in the Church. I am not aware that history records a single voice raised in opposition to it, nor even a single voice raised against those who would oppose it. AFAIK, no such opposition appears to have been known.
“…Kelly does not draw a huge disjunction between the “earlier” doctrine and the “later” doctrine. The “later” teachings he surveys are essentially continuations of earlier lines of thoughts. It’s not like his account of the earlier doctrine was notably or strikingly different in this regard.”.
This is precisely where I take opposition to your view.
In Chapter eight of the quote above he mentions the fact that there never has been a “continuity” from first century on this doctrine.
To make Mr. kelly’s quote sound like he is somehow saying this in reference to first century thought would be misleading—therefore, the title of the chapter.
I do not negate the fact that this doctrine of the eucharist arose in later times— on that- we agree!.
I merely pointed out that Mr. Kelly’s quote–in context did not say that the eucharist had been practiced as such “from the beginning”–.
In the second place, I don’t think I dropped my terror at ever admitting I was wrong only when I became a Catholic. I think even as a Protestant I was willing to admit my mistakes and screw-ups, and I think Jeb should be too.
Indeed. My apologies for seeming to imply that every Protestant acts like Jeb. That would be a grave insult to Protestants and deeply untrue. I had in mind the contrast the contrast between Jeb’s (former) Catholic faith and the project he has now undertaken of single-handedly inventing a new theology. The Reformers, at least, drew on the Fathers. Modern Fundamentalists can sometimes (not always) place themselves in Jeb’s precarious position as Sole Owner and Operator of the Church of Me. When they do, they tend to place themselves also in the position of fearing that every mistake means The Whole Ball o’Wax is false. So they tend to refuse to admit the teensiest error. One of the many Providential kindness God did you was to place you in a tradition that was still human enough to teach you that real men admitted their mistakes. Jeb seems to be unable to do this. More’s the pity for him.
Keep up the good work!
On another subject entirely, whatever became of the “Arthur” project?
Judicial Exposure to Error is a Reality.
Of course, folks like yours truly will ask all the boring questions, like, “How do you escape the circularity of the Roman claims regarding papal infallibility?” or “How can Rome’s claims, built as they were historically, upon such a wide variety of fraudulent documents, stand today in light of her own history?” And more to the point, “Do you really believe you can approach the Mass 20,000 times in your life and still die impure, and that this re-presentation is the same sacrifice as the perfect work you once professed to embrace?” Of course, those are the tough questions, which lead folks back to the inspired Scriptures, and that is the last place The Coming Home Network wants to go.
In any case, as sad as it always is to read of someone abandoning the gospel for the false pretenses of Rome, it really does not surprise me when it happens. Why? Because we live in a day when the faithful are being tested as they were in Elijah’s day. If you do not passionately love the truth, God is under no obligation to continue to allow you to possess it. And how many do we see in the post-evangelical world who are truly passionate about the truth of the gospel? Oh, folks may be very passionate about their particular cause, but there is a vast difference between being cause-passionate and being gospel-passionate. There is little difference between the zeal that consumes basketball fans this time of year and that which is created by a particular cultural “cause.” But the gospel is different. It speaks of attributes of God’s character that the natural man does not have the capacity to truly love. It strikes at the heart of man’s arrogance, it removes, by its emphasis upon powerful, effective, sovereign grace, any ground of boasting in the man. But over time, if one is apathetic about the truth of the gospel, God may well bring judgment to bear in causing one to love a lie. And surely, anyone who has gazed in awe at the grandeur of the finished work of Christ in the light of the eternal decree of a holy and just God, who can then “trade that in” for the endless treadmill of Rome’s sacramental system, the unfinished work of the Mass, and the specter of satispassio in purgatory, is one far beyond my comprehension and understanding. I truly pray for Dr. Beckwith’s restoration, but more so, I pray God will once again cause His people to recognize the centrality of the truths of the gospel so that others may not fall into the same temptations to trade in the reality of peace with God for the empty facade of Roman piety.
– James White
The Above Posted by: Ratmeister
To fellow Catholics,
I was reading through what Protestants had written, and obviously most of what they see is easily dismissed, but there are a few things statements they made, and I don’t know what the correct response to them is.
Jeb Protestant wrote:
Do you believe that Cardinal Ratzigner’s views that Paul didn’t write the pastorals, there are three Isaiahs, and the creation account in Genesis 1 comes from the period of the Babylonian captivity are contrary to church teaching? Apparently he didn’t think they contradicted Dei Verbum.
Brian Kvic wrote:
“Everytime a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from Purgatory springs,”
and
…during which at times there were more than one pope claiming primacy.
And thanks to everyone on here who loves the Church and seeks to contend earnestly for the Truth.
I am fairly certain Kelly does not use the word “continuity” or “continuous” in this connection. Please provide the correct wording for the quotation you are thinking of.
Ah, well now, that would be a horse of a different color, wouldn’t it? Yes, I can see where the “cradle Protestant” might have less invested in always being right in any dispute against Rome than the fallen-away Catholic. Good point.
At the same time, like Lewis’s Titanic Knights Templar in The Four Loves, there is more there than just fear of error. There also seems to be something like a contempt for the other that entails an unwillingness to interact, to make contact. Like Kronk says in that great film, The Emperor’s New Groove, “There’s a wall there.”
Thanks for asking! Something entirely unexpected actually, but it has led to a finished manuscript that is going out in the mail next week! If I get a chance, can I call you later today and catch up? Or will you be busy feting Janet for Mother’s Day?
I’m pretty sure I provided the foundations for a Catholic response to Jeb’s questions about the authorship/dating/origin of Genesis 1, Isaiah and the Pastoral epistles above. Of these, the only one I see as a real problem is the Pastorals, which IMVHO almost certainly need to be ascribed to St. Paul — for literary reasons. I do not think inerrancy is at stake one way or the other.
As for Brian’s comments: Tetzel’s singing slogan selling indulgences clearly represents an abuse that is not reflective of the Church’s teaching on indulgences. Luther was right to oppose Tetzel, although apparently not right in all of his accusations against him. For a quick primer on the Western Schism (multiple popes), see Canon Ripley.
There’s a wall there.
Heh! Kronk is the greatest character to come out of Disney in a decade.
By all means, feel free to call! We will be home from Mass around 2:00 PM PDT. We should be around the rest of the day. If you haven’t checked my blog, I have some bizarre and exciting news too.
SDG,
Thanks, I’ll check out that!
One lamentable thing about Dr. Beckwith’s return to the Roman Catholic Church is that now he has a lower status before God. While he once could be considered to be a saint (as the New Testament defines a saint), that is, a believing Christian, now he is only a son of the Roman Church, and being laity, not even part of the Church, but in communion with the Church. Furthermore, by this he has abandoned his membership in the general priesthood of all believers in Jesus Christ, as Peter taught all believers to be priests to God the Father through Jesus Christ, as a fulfillment of the Old Testament types. And he has derogated to being under the special priesthood, which is not even a legitamite priesthood, as will be evidenced at the final judgment. He had had the truth, but has preferred the false.
Care to try to back that up?
“…being laity, not even part of the Church…”
Huh?
“…the general priesthood of all believers in Jesus Christ…”
We believe in that, too.
Dragan is obviously a non-Catholic who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know about Catholicism.
Funny how when something “Traditional” is being discussed on threads as such as this, I and others are accused of “hijacking”
I am reading through this thread and I cant seem to find other than the first few posts anything to do with Beckwith (I note again that his so called “coversion” was the teachings of the early church, as most protestants I know who converted say it was the beautiful gothic church’s and teachings that withstood the test of time that caused their conversion, not the liberalization and Catholic “reformation” of Vatican II from 1962-65)
John, please see the first sentence in my comment above (and for that matter the next couple of sentences too).
erick:
I would highly recommend you actually read and research the early Christian church and the actual works of the Church Fathers.
There are as many as 63 Fathers and eminent ecclesiastical writers from the 1st and 6th centuries, all of whom proclaim the Real Presence.
St Ignatius was a disciple of St. Peter himself and when he addressed the Gnostics, he even said:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
St. Justin Martyr wrote an Apology to the Emperor Anotoninus in the 2nd century:
“We do not receive these things as common bread and drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the word of God, even so we have been taught that the Eucharist is both the flesh and the blood of the same incarnate Jesus.”
Origen in the 3rd century wrote:
“If thou wilt go up with Christ to celebrate the Passover, He will give to thee that bread of Benediction, His own body, and will vouchsafe to thee His own blood.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century instructed the Catechumens:
“He Himself having declared, ‘This is My Body’, who shall dare to doubt henceforward? And He having said, ‘This is My Blood’, who shall ever doubt, saying: This is not His blood? He once at Cana turned water into wine, which is akin to blood; and is He underserving of belief when He turned wine into blood?”
St. John Chrysostom preached on the Eucharist:
“If thou wert indeed incorporeal, He would have delivered to thee those same incorporeal gifts without covering. But since the soul is united to the body, He delivers to thee in things perceptible to the senses the things to be apprehended by the understanding. How many nowadays say: ‘Would that they could look upon His (Jesus’) form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes. Lo! Thou Seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him.'”
St. Augustine in the 5th century addressed the newly-baptized, saying:
“I promised you a discourse wherein I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which sacrament you even now behold, and of which you were last night partakers. You ought to know wat you have recieved. The bread which you see on the altar, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
So, unlike SDG, I would argue with you, saying that this was NOT a later development; the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the Eucharist itself were Christian doctrines from the very beginning of the Christian church, made evident in the very writings of the early christian Fathers as well as various early Christian writers.
As Saint Paul said, “The Cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? …
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: ‘Take and Eat: This is My Body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of Me’. In like manner also the cup, after the Supper, saying: ‘This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood. This do ye, as often ye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as often ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until He come. Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:23-29)
(blink) Huh? Whatchootawkinbout, Esau?
SDG:
Please, correct me if I’m wrong (this thread’s become so long and my browser is having a difficult time loading it), but I thought that you were acquiescing to erick in a way, whereby you were essentially saying that the Sacrament of the Eucharist that came to be in later centuries may not have looked exactly like what the earliest Christians thought of it (circa 1st century), but it, nonetheless, developed from that.
I would argue based on corroborating evidence that can be obtained from various early ecclesial writings and multiple patristic works, vast amounts of which would go on to demonstrate that the Real Presence and the Eucharist were themes consistent in the beliefs of the earliest Christians all throughout Christianity from the 1st Century until the time of the Reformation, when the Reformers, save Luther, dispensed with it.
In that sense, it could be said that as compared to Zwingli and Calvin, it was actually Luther who seemed more faithful to the teachings of the early Church Fathers since, for one, he believed in the Eucharist (albeit, I think his notion of it primarily stemmed from consubstantiation v. transubstantiation).
God bless.
Erick,
FWIW, the point at issue earlier between Erick and myself was how Kelly characterized the development of Eucharistic doctrine, not necessarily what either Erick or I thought about it. I wasn’t acquiescing anything about what the Fathers did or didn’t say, only clarifying what Kelly did and didn’t say.
FWIW, I certainly would not say that Eucharistic realism was “a later development” — nor, AFAICT, would Kelly. Having said that, certainly the belief did “develop” over time in the Newmanian sense of the development of doctrine, just as belief in the deity of Christ and the Trinity developed over time. That is, the doctrine became more explicitly and precisely formulated in later centuries compared to earlier ones. The belief itself is attested from the first, but that attestation clarified and strengthened over time.
now he is only a son of the Roman Church, and being laity, not even part of the Church, but in communion with the Church.
Dragon, isn’t this like saying the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are not even a part of God but merely in perfect communion with each other. It’s nonsensical. To be in communion is to be one with the thing that you’re in communion with.
Reversion to the Catholic Church among her members, especially among those who have now occupied preeminent positions in their walks of life, both in the United States and elsewhere, is something for which we, as Catholics, should be truly grateful and about which those who used to be, or are not yet, Catholics should give serious thoughts.
My reception into the Catholic Church (as someone who comes from Muslim background) last Christmas (2006) can be called, in a sense, an act of reversion. For it was the Catholic Church that I had in mind when I wanted to become a Christian, yet, mostly through ignorance of my own, and partly because of lack of good testimony from the Catholics around me, I was baptised in one of the (international) evangelical churches in my country, and, as a consequence, I’m presently still, though soon will no longer be, working for its interests!
Dr. Beckwith’s reversion to the Catholic Church hopefully will ignite some spark of interest in, and appreciation to, the Church among her dormant members, and will give conviction and comfort to her faithful members who are currently being tempted, from within or without, to question their belief in her teachings, which were truly received from Jesus her Lord, were faithfully handed down by the apostles, are carefully guarded by her present adherents, and will continue to be protected mightily until the end of the age by The Holy Spirit, by whose guidance, and at the command of her Master, she ardently proclaims the truth to the very ends of the earth.
Heridian, what a wonderful post. An alleluia on your reception into the Church!
Mr. Akin,
I hope I can share some of my observations.
Mr. Akin says
“1) The statement of a single founder, such as Dr. Nicole, regarding the interpretation of such a statement is analogous to that of a single founding father regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it is not of itself conclusive, however enthusiastically Mr. White and his friend might receive it.”
The scenario is that SOME founders were asked this question and Dr. Nicole says “Because WE didn’t want…” The “SOME” and “WE” cannot refer to “Single”. Am I right? Unless Mr. Akin has very insightful mind reading about other founders and find them disagree with Dr. Nicole. 🙂
Mr Akin also says
“There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.”
Does the Bible in the Roman Catholic Church equal to that in Protestant Church? When you say Bible, do you refer to the 66 books (and 66 books alone) in the Protestant church’s Bible?
I think the answer is “No”. (Correct me if I am wrong.) Since the answer is “No”, how can any Catholic people sign this ETS doctrinal in good conscience?
Thank you.
Joseph
Joseph,
Regardless of who Dr. Nicole was speaking for, his comments at an interview do not redefine the ETS statement of faith to say something it doesn’t explicitly say. Not even us Papists attribute that much authority to our pontiff.
If the statement of faith was specifically referring to the 66 book Bible it should have said “The 66 books of the Bible alone…” But that’s not what it says and several commenters here have shown why a Catholic can have no reservations about the statement in the form that it’s currently written.
If the ETS wants to keep out Roman Catholics so bad, why not add a clause denouncing Catholicism to the doctrinal statement?
Joseph,
As St. Thomas More recognized, one may legitimately sign a document with more than one possible interpretation, as long as you have a permissible interpretation.
This holds true whether or not you know (or have reason to know or suspect) that the author of the document, or another signatory, has a different interpretation (permissible or not).
To Brian,
Dr. Nicole is not Re-define. He was asked why the founders do this and he answered. When did the “Re-define” happen? If I ask you why you said this and that. And then you say “I said this because such and such..” Can I say “Hey, Brian is Re-defining something”? Can I?:-) Or should I say “This is exactly what Brian meant because he is right there explaining the reason.” Now Dr. Nicole was there explaining something he has done. He tells us what the ETS document is for. Where is this Re-Define???
To Brian and Esquire,
About the understanding of what Bible should include… If this is so open to “interpretation” and Not constrained to the background and author, can I say
“The Bible in Romans Catholic church has only 66 books and that is MY interpretation”? Can I?:-) If I cannot say this, why? 🙂
Joseph,
The Bible has 73 books, and that is not a matter of interpretation, and it is not open to debate.
Someone else may say it has only 66 books, and they would be wrong.
I may sign something referring to the Bible, as long as I intend by that term the legitimate authentic interpretation of the Bible (73 books), whether or not I believe or know that someone else has a different (wrong) interpretation.
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Thank you.
Joseph,
The statement as written doesn’t say anything a Catholic would disagree with per se. Dr. Nichol said that the ETS wrote the statement they did “because we didn’t want any Roman Catholics in the group.” How does Dr. Nichol saying he doesn’t want Catholics change the meaning of a statement of faith which says nothing Catholics can’t agree with?
Let’s say I open up a restaurant and don’t want Catholics to eat there on Friday. So I put a sign on the door that says we don’t serve fish on Fridays. If someone asks me why I put the sign up I’ll outright tell them that it’s because I don’t want Catholics in my restaurant. But neither the sign nor my statement can stop a Catholic from going to my restaurant and in good conscience ordering a vegetarian dish on Friday. In order to do that my comments about my intentions would have to “re-define” the meaning of my sign outside my restaurant. If I wanted to stop Catholics I should have made a sign that all meals on Friday have meat in them or just outright said “Papists not Welcome”.
About the understanding of what Bible should include… If this is so open to “interpretation” and Not constrained to the background and author, can I say
“The Bible in Romans Catholic church has only 66 books and that is MY interpretation”? Can I?:-) If I cannot say this, why? 🙂
You can say whatever you want – all one has to do is get a Bible with the imprimatur to prove you wrong. The number of books in the Catholic Bible is a matter of fact not interpretation. Where does a Catholic contradict any facts in accepting the ETS statement of faith?
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written” Check
“and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” Check
“God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” Check
“each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” Check
Whether or not Catholics are welcome at the ETS doesn’t change the fact that the statement of faith says nothing a Catholic can’t agree with. Again I ask, if the ETS wants to keep out Roman Catholics so bad, why not add a clause denouncing Catholicism to the doctrinal statement?
Hey, wait a minute!! Did anyone bother to say that Patty Bonds, who I might say is the sister of Mister James White, also converted to Catholicism. Her children also converted as well. It looks like she was healed of her blindness. Praise God another sheep found!
You may have a few examples of people leaving the Catholic Church but there are million times more people leaving the Catholic Church and joining Lutheranism, Evangelical Churches including thousands every year leaving Catholicism and joining the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Brazil. Brazil is the largest Catholic country in the world and yet, the SDA church has been able to make a huge impact upon people no longer deceived by the man-made doctrines and rituals of the Catholic Church.
Your new-found joy in people rejoining the CC pales in comparison with the numbers who are heeding the admonition of Revelation: “And I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities'” (Revelation 18:4,5).
Finally, in the words of Jesus: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”. Matt. 15:8-9. What better example of man-made commandments than Sunday keeping, baptism of infants, indulgences (which can still be purchased at the Vatican), confession to the Priest, adoration and intercession of Mary, the purgatory, limbo, eternal hell, the immortality of the soul, the eucharist, the Papacy as God on Earth and many others?
1, the Pope:
“To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.” The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum. Inter, title 14, chapter 4, “Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium”, Column 140, Paris, 1685. (In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, “Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam” (“Our Lord God the Pope”) can be found in column 153).
“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism.
“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God…
“The Pope alone is called most holy…
“Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of hell.
“Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman Pontiff by no means pertains only to heavenly things, but also earthly things, and to things under the earth, and even over the angels, whom he his greater than.
“So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope….
“…the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power.” Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.
“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, &quo
t;Cities Petrus Bertanous”.
“…We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty…” Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), Encyclical promulgated on June 20, 1894.
“We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God….dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority….I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do…Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ.” Decretales Domini Gregori ix Translatione Episcoporum, (on the Transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Decretales, col. 205 (while Innocent III was Pope)
And I could on and on… For complete listing, see http://www.lightministries.com/id523.htm#pope_1
2. Indulgences are still sold and an active part of Catholic belief:
“What is an indulgence? The Church explains, “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1). To see the biblical foundations for indulgences, see the Catholic Answers tract A Primer on Indulgences. (From http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp.)
You can still buy indulgences at the Vatican, if you know where to go. I saw one in a library in Brazil, bought by an evangelical pastor at the Vatican in the 60’s. It had the same content as in the middle ages, so nothing has really changed in the Catholic Church since the time of the Inquisition and other heresies.
Sure looks like the Catholic Church fits the bill of Revelation and Matthew 15.
I pray Catholic people reading this will question why they choose to believe in tradition and not in the Holy Scriptures.
__________________
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:8-9
I pray Catholic people reading this will question why they choose to believe in tradition and not in the Holy Scriptures.
Andre, I pray those outside the Catholic Church will question why they choose to believe that Tradition and Holy Scriptures contradict each other (and check the “facts” they use to reach those decisions).
Andre,
That’s it???
That’s all you can muster???
The typical Anti-Catholic rhetoric and some mindless citing of Anti-Catholic propaganda???
Why don’t you first learn your Christian History first prior to spreading calumny about the Church Christ founded, and then you can come back and engage in actual intelligent discussion.
All you’re doing right now is mindlessly following the Anti-Catholic hacks out there, not even knowing that Scripture AND Tradition are the two pillars of Christ’s Church!
You can still buy indulgences at the Vatican, if you know where to go. I saw one in a library in Brazil, bought by an evangelical pastor at the Vatican in the 60’s. It had the same content as in the middle ages, so nothing has really changed in the Catholic Church since the time of the Inquisition and other heresies.
Yeah, imagine how much a kilo of that costs?!
There’s even an ‘indulgence’ ring that people don’t know about.
This is way worse than a ‘drug’ ring!
So watch out for indulgence dealers, folks!!!
It seems that this evangelical pastor became addicted to indulgences and couldn’t get enough!
Remember, the first gram of indulgence is free; after that, you’re on your own!
Andre, do you believe in the Trinity? That’s not explicitly described in Scripture – Tradition in action
Before you ban me from this site as is so typical of Catholic bloggers who can’t refute hard facts, please clarify the statements below, using the Bible only. Let’s start with 3 doctrines of the CChurch:
1. Mary IS A SAVIOR, EQUAL TO CHRIST.
Ratzinger at Pope John Paul II Funeral: “The Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of the Apostles and SAVIOR OF THE PEOPLE OF ROME, intercede to God for us so that the face of his blessed Son may be shown to our Pope and comfort the Church with the light of the resurrection.
The original source is here http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2005/documents/ns_lit_doc_20050408_messa-esequiale-jp-ii_it.html
2. The Pope is God
“To believe that our LORD GOD THE POPE has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.” The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum. Inter, title 14, chapter 4, “Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium”, Column 140, Paris, 1685. (In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, the words, “Dominum Deum Nostrum Papam” (“Our Lord God the Pope”) can be found in column 153).
“It is quite certain that Popes have never disapproved or rejected this title ‘Lord God the Pope’ for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome by Gregory XIII.” Statement from Fr. A. Pereira.
3. The Vatican and CChurch have the authority to change the Bible and the Law of God as it pleases:
“The Catholic Church of its own infallible authority created Sunday a holy day to take the place of the Sabbath of the old law,” (Kansas City Catholic, February 9, 1893).
“If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church,” (Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore replying for the Cardinal in a letter dated February 10, 1920).
Let’s start an INTELLIGENT discussion by providing clear and unequivocal Biblical evidence to support the three doctrines above. This is just a start…
_________
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:8-9
Y’know, Andre, the ACTUAL teachings of the Catholic Church are not secret; you can find them in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you really believe that the Catholic Church actually teaches those things you claim it teaches, then you have been sold a bill of goods. Educate yourself(catholic.com would be a good place to start). Then we can have a discussion.
Bill, I do not always agree with you or appreciate your comments BUT…YOU ARE DEAD ON!!!
and I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU.
One wonderful thing about the CATHOLIC CHURCH (and there are many)is that it is not an esoteric religion, there are no secret initiations or rites, there are no secrets. NOW, there is preparation and preparation for knowledge and certain acceptance in PUBLIC ritual BUT you can find it in books even before online.
We are NOT Masons–no secret handshakes or words.
We are not Jewish Kabbalists–no need to study a separate sacred, ancient or liturgical language (although it might help) like Hebrew or Ahramaic in the Book of Zohar–or the need to know math in the Gematria to decode the Torah or secrets passed on allegedly orally.
We are not Zoarastians, Mandeans, Yadezis, Druze, Alowites–and should not be practicing dissamilution or crypto faith (although this was done in Japan probably by necessity)
WE ARE A PUBLIC FAITH!!!!
NOW, you can pray more and understand things more and learn more–and you may want to read things in an order–and God may have a plan for you and there may be a mystical experience that he surprises you with and you may learn things that can be put in words as Aquinas said.
But there is no set method or plan like in Yoga or even Eastern Christian Heychastism–no specific necessary body postures, no breathing (although it may be good and helpful)
Catholicism is actually more “liberal” and freer and has more choice than people think.
Catholicism does NOT have a per se sacred language (although Latin is preferred and beautiful and I prefer the TLM–it is not per se or inherently sacred)–unlike HEBREW for Jews, or ARABIC for Muslims, or SANSKRIT for Hindus
All of which have an inherent claim of sacredness and superiority and mandate the language in prayer and liturgy and sacred reading.
Much more specific and necessary than in Catholicism.
Catholicism does not have a specific sacred law intimately tied to Catholicism or intrinsic to it.
Islam has the SHARIA. Jews have the HALACHA. There is Hindu law. Tibetan Buddhists have specific law and are tied to a specific nation and form of government (even in exile)
There is not a specific form of government or language or law required.
Catholicism does not have hidden teachings. There is not the DaVinci code in the Vatican library. There is not hidden texts for adepts or alchemists. There is not hidden Gnostic texts in the Vatican library–the closest thing was the Secret of Fatima (which while I am a devotee of Fatima it is not required for the faith)
YOU DON’T THINK IN THIS DAY AN AGE–THAT THESE SECRET GNOSTIC TEXTS AND DAVINCI CODES AND MEROGINGIAN BLOOD LINES WOULD BE PUBLIC AND PROVED????? DO YOU REALLY THINK THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NOW HAS THE TEMPORAL POWER TO DO THIS???
There are YOUTUBE, and BLOGS, and WIKIPEDIA, GOOGLE SEARCHES, and GOOGLE VIDEO, and IM/SKYPE, IPOD–the Vatican does NOT control the flow of information. There are dozens of books on the DaVinci Code, Holy Blood/Holy Grail, the Gospel of Thomas, the Nag Hammadi–and my own study THESE DO NOT STAND UP–THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS AMAZINGLY OPEN, COMPREHNESIVE, LOGICAL, and SELF SUSTAINING AND CONSISTENT.–While there are many valid criticisisms of the Catholic Church in the temporal sense–I HAVE NOT BEEN CONVINCED OR EVEN SEEN ANY GOOD PHILOSOPHICAL, LOGICAL, HISTORICAL OR THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS.
The Mystics of the Catholic Church from John the Baptist, Mary (the unique and highest mystic of union with God), to Desert Fathers,
the best known counter reformation so called mystics like
ST. TERESA OF AVILA
ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS
ST. IGNATIUS OF AVILA
All of the UNCORRUPTIBLES, and miracles like BILOCATION, READING OF SOULS, LEVITATION, STIGMATA, HEALING, ODOR OF SANCTITY, which may or may not be true like the stories from
ROSE OF LIMA, ST. ANTHONY OF PADUA, ST. JOHN VIANNEY, DON BOSCO, PADRE PIO, CATHERINE OF SIENNA, ST. MARTIN DE PORRES
–NONE of them had SECRET TEXTS, NONE of them had any secrets or esoteric books but they did have
THE GOSPEL
and the CHURCH
and DEVOTION TO MARY
and the MASS (which is said PUBLICLY)
and access to CONFESSION (the nearest thing to a secret)
and other public published BOOKS
and art, and architecture and MUSIC
NO SECRETS, NO ESOTERIC TEACHINGS, NO INITIATION (at least not secret), NO FORMULA FOR UNION WITH GOOD PER SE, NO SECRET RITES, NO SECRET WORDS NOR HANDSHAKES
PUBLIC
OPEN
TRUE
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
explore her in all her glory
Andre:
Before you ban me from this site as is so typical of Catholic bloggers who can’t refute hard facts, please clarify the statements below, using the Bible only. Let’s start with 3 doctrines of the CChurch:
What are you talking about???
Jimmy hardly bans anybody from this site.
Also, you haven’t even refuted anything at all yourself but, instead, mindlessly throw out the typical Anti-Catholic rubbish that you, yourself, don’t examine if there’s even any truth in it!
Let’s start an INTELLIGENT discussion by providing clear and unequivocal Biblical evidence to support the three doctrines above. This is just a start…
Let me prove my point here — where do you think the Bible came from exactly???
Andre,
You’re amazing!
According to you, it is you who says the Catholic Church teaches the following:
1. Mary IS A SAVIOR, EQUAL TO CHRIST.
2. The Pope is God
3. The Vatican and CChurch have the authority to change the Bible and the Law of God as it pleases
Now, if you think that distorting what the Catholic Church actually teaches and engaging in strawman fallacies will somehow automatically win your arguments, I guess you’ve never really engaged in intelligent discussion.
Let’s start an INTELLIGENT discussion by providing clear and unequivocal Biblical evidence to support the three doctrines above. This is just a start…
Andre, I think the people here would be more than happy to engage in intelligent discussion with you, but no one can provide evidence to support Mary being equal to Jesus, the Pope being God, or the Church being able to change the Bible at will. That’s because the Catholic Church has never taught these things.
Take Bill’s advice. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a summary of Catholic doctrine that comes straight from the horse’s mouth. Here’s a link to an easily searchable version of the Catechism online: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm. You can look up the things you have questions about and see what the Catholic Church really says about them. I also second Bill’s suggestion to go to Catholic.com. It has all kinds of resources.
We’ll be happy to help answer any questions you have.
The truth.
More truth: “For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer. … The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary.” (Lumen Gentium 62)
The truth.
Andre:
You write: “1. Mary IS A SAVIOR, EQUAL TO CHRIST. Ratzinger at Pope John Paul II Funeral: ‘The Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of the Apostles and SAVIOR OF THE PEOPLE OF ROME, intercede to God for us so that the face of his blessed Son may be shown to our Pope and comfort the Church with the light of the resurrection.’ The original source is here http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2005/documents/ns_lit_doc_20050408_messa-esequiale-jp-ii_it.html:”
First of all, your “original source” is in Latin. Since you are conscientiously providing sources for your information, why don’t you give us the source of your translation?
I don’t claim to know Latin, but an online dictionary tells me that the Latin word for “savior” is “servator” or “servatrix”, not “salus” (see http://www.ultralingua.com). The definition given for “salus” is “health, soundness; safety, welfare, well-being, salvation; a wish for a person’s welfare, salutation, greeting.” I realize the word “salvation” is in there, but how do you know that is what was meant in the original context, unless you are a Latin speaker yourself? Are you just making the worst assumption you can think of? Any stick is good enough with which to beat the Church?
In any case, I would ask you to consider that in the translation you provide, the Pope’s prayer was for Mary to “intercede to God for us”. If we believed Mary was equal to God, there would be no need for her to “intercede to God for us”, for she would be God herself. In which case, we would be asking some other person to “intercede to Mary for us”, would we not?
In regard to your No. 2, in the interest of fairness to both sides — after all, in providing these citations presumably you are inviting us Catholics to respond to them — I’m sure you will wish to peruse the following link, which responds to this apparently fairly common charge: http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/zenzelinus.html.
Finally, none of the sources you cite is an official source of Catholic teaching. A prayer by a cardinal, even during a pope’s funeral, is not the same as the issuance of a binding, dogmatic statement of doctrine, and neither is a quote from the “Kansas City Catholic [presumably a newspaper], February 9, 1893”. Why don’t you cite councils or encyclicals? Trying to prove that Catholics believe a certain thing by quoting a newspaper article is like Catholics proving that non-Catholics believe certain things by quoting Protestant bumper stickers (“Warning: In Case of Rapture, This Car Will Be Driverless”).
There are tons of pages of official statements of Catholic doctrine. “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent” is a widely available book, as are the decrees of the Second Vatican Council. Decrees of other councils and infallible pronouncements of the popes are available on http://www.vatican.va. These are what you need to hit us with if you want to catch us believing particluar things which you consider bad. Cite these kinds of documents and we will be unable to squirm away.
By the way, a couple of people have recommended you visit http://www.catholic.com. That really is a good idea, because there are forums there where issues are discussed and questions answered (whereas this is really just a place to comment on Jimmy’s blog postings, and not a great forum for a debate). And believe me, you can be as anti-Catholic as you want and they won’t kick you off — their whole purpose is to deal with questions like yours.
Best wishes and prayers,
Mark
It seems some people haven’t read my post before commenting on it. These are statements by the Pope himself and by Catholic prelates and authorities. I’m not making anything up.
So… if the CC does not have hidden teachings and most of you said it
-DOES NOT TEACH worship of Mary;
-It’s not AN ACTUAL teaching of the CC;
-that this is DISTORTING Catholic doctrine
how do you reconcile the following statements by the utmost authority in Catholic doctrine, the Pope himself in regards to Mary?:
– On 5/7/97, Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to “the Virgin Mary” and urged all Christians to accept Mary as their mother
“Having created man ‘male and female,’ in the Redemption too, the Lord wanted to put the New Eve next to the New Adam. … Mary, the New Eve, thus becomes the perfect icon of the Church. She, in the divine plan, represents under the Cross redeemed humanity, which, needy of salvation, is made capable of offering a contribution to the development of the saving work.” . ((Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997). [Mary here contributes to the saving work as a human being.]
. …” John Paul II also underlined that “the history of Christian piety teaches that Mary is the path that leads to Christ, and that filial devotion to her does not at all diminish intimacy with Jesus, but rather, it increases it and leads it to very high levels of perfection.” He concluded by asking all Christians “to make room (for Mary) in their daily lives, acknowledging her providential ROLE IN THE PATH OF SALVATION.” ((Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997).
“At today’s general audience, Pope John Paul continued his catechesis on Mary, recalling that the Church holds, in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that she was preserved from original sin at the first moment of her existence and, as well, that ‘Mary was free from personal sin and moral imperfection throughout her life.’ The Holy Father went on to say that ‘the possibility of sinning does not spare even a Christian who is transformed or renewed by grace … unless, as the Council of Trent stated, a special privilege assures such immunity from sin. This is what happened to Mary.’
>>>> The council, stating that the Church ‘firmly holds this (privilege of Mary), … confirms its SOLID DOCTRINAL CHARACTER'” (6/19/96, Vatican Information Service, Vatican City).<<<<< If Mary was conceived without Sin as the Pope says, she could have died to save the world and Jesus was unnecessary, wouldn't you agree? If all have sinned according to the Bible (Rom. 3:23) and Mary didn't, it also implies that her mother was sinless which is totally absurd. The premier issue of the Roman Catholic publication Catholic Heritage displayed a front page with the title: "Mary, Mother of the Church." In a Question and Answer column the question is asked, "At the foot of the cross, Mary shared in the mystery of the passion. True or False? Answer: True. Mary united her sorrows to those of her Son. The sorrowful and immaculate heart of Mary bled with her Son for all of mankind. For this reason, we invoke her under the title of Co-Redemptrix." The following random quotes from the book Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary, by John Ferraro, is intended to give an overview of Roman Catholic dogma concerning the Virgin Mary. Ferraro's book was given the NIHIL OBSTAT (Nothing Against) and the Imprimatur, which is an official statement by the Roman Catholic Church that the book "is free of doctrinal or moral error." Therefore, we can take these quotes as official Roman Catholic doctrine: ... She [Mary] is co-Redemptrix of the human race. ... The church and the saints greet her thus: "You, O Mary, together with Jesus Christ, redeemed us." ...Mary is our co-Redemptrix because she gave us Jesus pledge of our salvation. Furthermore, she is co-Redemptrix of the human race, because with Christ she ransomed mankind from the power of Satan. ...Mary is our co-Redemptrix because she suffered in her heart whatever was lacking in the passion of Christ. ...All grace is passed from God to Jesus, from Jesus to Mary, and from Mary to us. The grace of God, cure for our ills, comes to us through Mary like water through an aqueduct. ...She herself is the Book of Life from which God will read the names of the elect on the day of judgment. ...To be devoted to you, O' Mary, is a weapon of salvation which God gave to those whom He positively wants to save. Do you believe it now? Andre
Andre:
I realized after posting that I omitted something. In regard to your citation of Cardinal Ratzinger at JP2’s funeral, I believe this is the portion you quoted, from the original: “Beata Virgo Maria, apostolorum Regina et Salus populi Romani, apud Deum intercedat ut vultum Filii sui benedicti Papæ nostro ostendat atque Ecclesiam luce resurrectionis eius consoletur.” This is where I got the word “salus” (not “servator” or “servatrix”) from.
Mark
Okay, Andre, we were fair with you in pointing out your ignorance of Catholic teaching. Instead of investigating what the Catholic Church really teaches, you have chosen to cling to the lies you have been taught. Your priviledge. Just remember who the Father of Lies is.
Andre,
You’ve just confirmed my suspicions about you.
Indeed, you are IGNORANT of what you’re talking about.
Please study CHRISTIANITY and its history; you’ll discover that Mary as the New Eve is nothing new and, in fact, a theological notion prominent in the early Christian church as taught by many early fathers of the Church.
This doesn’t place Mary above Jesus; however, it does speak to Typology.
Look to St. Irenaeus who during the 2nd Century stated:
“It was right and necessary that Adam be restored in Christ…that Eve be restored in Mary, so that a Virgin, become advocate of a virgin, might erase and abolish the disobedience of a virgin by her obedience as Virgin.”
Jimmy Akin says it best:
Part of the conceptual background for this was the realization of Mary’s role as the New or Second Eve, something that the Church Fathers are explicit about very early. It was discerned that, just as God started humanity with a first Adam and Eve, he started redeemed humanity with a New Adam and a New Eve. Thus St. Paul refers to Jesus’ role as the New Adam, and the Church Fathers identify Mary as the New Eve. Thus, just as Eve cooperated with Adam in bringing sin to the world (by giving him the forbidden fruit), Mary cooperated with Jesus in bringing salvation to the world (by serving as his mother).
Similarly, just as both the first Adam and Eve were sinless from their conceptions, the new Adam and Eve were sinless from their conceptions. The difference is that while the first pair fell from grace, the second remained faithful.
If Mary was conceived without Sin as the Pope says, she could have died to save the world and Jesus was unnecessary, wouldn’t you agree?
No I wouldn’t agree. No Catholic would. How did you arrive at the conclusion that Mary, by being conceived without sin, could have died to save the world?
If all have sinned according to the Bible (Rom. 3:23) and Mary didn’t, it also implies that her mother was sinless which is totally absurd.
Huh? What do one’s parents have to do with his or her sin? You don’t believe that Mary was sinless, yet you believe that Jesus was. How do you reconcile your beliefs with the statement you just made?
I’d like to see people using the Bible here to prove what the Catholic Church preaches in the doctrine of Mary. Obviously, there’s nothing! Quoting your own sources will discredit the argument.
Furthermore, a point by point rebuttal of my previous post will be most appreciated!!
Peace
André
Good point, Brian. Also, if Mary had not been conceived without sin–if the merits of her Son’s atoning sacrifice not been applied to her at her conception–would not Jesus have inherited from her a sinful human nature. Yet, Jesus was “a man like us in all things but sin”.
Andre, where does it say in the Bible that we have to show you where it says in the Bible?
As for “a point by point rebuttal” of your previous argument has already been given: The Catholic Church does NOT teach what you think it does, but you refuse to find out what the Catholic Church really teaches. I am having serious doubts about your good faith. I am beginning to believe that you are not at all interested in finding out the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Or, rather, what the Catholic Church truly teaches.
I’d like to see people using the Bible here to prove what the Catholic Church preaches in the doctrine of Mary. Obviously, there’s nothing! Quoting your own sources will discredit the argument.
Andre,
First, tell me where the Bible came from.
Also, please explain to me what makes you think that the Bible is the Word of God?
Quoting the bible itself will discredit the argument!
I’m waiting Andrew —
Or should I say ‘SPAM’ disguised as an ‘Anti-Catholic’?
Andre,
I think I understand where you are coming from. As an anti-Catholic Protestant, I once wrote a paper for a public high school class trying to prove how the teachings of the Catholic Church were unscriptural, before I learned better.
Here is what I see when I read your posts.
First of all, you are profoundly convinced, and rightly so, of the truth of Jesus Christ, the sole Savior of the world, and the holy scriptures, the only inspired and inerrant written word of God.
You are also convinced, very largely if not exclusively on the basis of what has been filtered to you through anti-Catholic sources and mentors, that the Catholic Church worships Mary, views the Pope as divine, regards its own decisions as of divine authority and equal to scripture, and so forth.
Yet you probably haven’t actually read any of the sources (real or spurious) you quote in their entirety. You probably only have quotations (real or spurious) that you got from other sources, all anti-Catholic.
You haven’t read any substantial portion of the Catechism, the Compendium or, e.g., the documents of Vatican II in an effort to really understand the teachings of the Catholic Church.
You certainly haven’t looked up what the Catechism or Compendium has to say about, e.g., idolatry and the First Commandment. You probably don’t realize what a big deal the Commandments are in traditional Catholic catechesis, and how Catholic children who receive a decent Catholic education are taught from childhood “I am the Lord your God; you shall not have any other gods before Me.” That includes Mary and popes, as any modestly knowledgable Catholic could tell you.
You quote Pope Benedict, but you haven’t read any of his writings, or you would know how doggedly Christocentric and Trinitarian his whole system of thought is, and how manifestly and patently ludicrous he would find any suggestion that Mary is equal to Christ. You have an isolated quotation that you think means something damning and would like to mean something damning, but you don’t really stop to ask yourself “What would this man say if I asked him to explain what he meant by that?”
Since you focus on Mary’s role in salvation, let me provide a bit more of the quotation from Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II. This is THE most relevant and authoritative document on this subject; this is where you would start in trying to understand the Church’s teaching, and everything else must be understood in reference to this.
Now, whether or not you agree with or accept all of that, it’s clearly very different from the idea that when it comes to salvation Jesus and Mary both do exactly the same thing, or even that Jesus does 99 percent and Mary does only 1 percent. On the contrary, Jesus does everything — he is our sole Mediator — and whatever Mary does, just like everything we do on behalf of one another, is based solely on that single absolute truth.
It is true that Jesus is our one Savior. But it is also true that the Bible speaks of being “saved” by others, or even “saving” ourselves. St. Paul says “I become all things to all men that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:22; cf. Rom 11:14). In Acts 2:40 the apostles preached, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation!” When St. Paul counsels the Corinthians, “Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?” he at least implies that it is possible to “save” your wife or husband (1 Cor 7:16).
Yet even though St. Paul could speak of “saving” some, obviously ultimately it is Christ alone who saves. And in exactly the same way, Lumen Gentium makes clear that there is nothing that the Church attributes to Mary that is not ultimately attributed to Christ alone.
Bill912, what did the Pope teach in those statements about Mary then???????
People here are commenting without even reading the documents!!
I understand why you would refuse to explain the Pope’s statements point by point because that would seriously damage your argument. It’s so clear that there’s nothing to explain!!!
It’s easy to call people IGNORANT and a LIAR or HAVE SERIOUS DOUBTS about one’s faith without addressing the questions. Anyone can do that. A serious approach will require more than anger or spite against someone who has strongly questioned your doctrines.
And oh, I forgot, the Catholic Church still does not believe the Bible is enough or that it is authoritative at all. You have changed it so much or rewritten it that it’s innocuous to you. Just as you threw away Luther’s Sola Scriptura principle to begin with. You always need a little bit of your tradition to prove why your tradition preaches what it preaches… Interesting….
Still looking for an intelligent, cogent response to the statement by John Paull II and others…
People here are commenting without even reading the documents!!
THAT’S EXACTLY what you’re doing, don’t you see????????
Have you even READ those documents at all????
It’s easy to call people IGNORANT and a LIAR
AGAIN, YOU are the one that’s doing that — making the ACCUSATIONS while providing DISTORTIONS of the things you’re citing!
It’s so EASY to create a strawman when all you have is a WEAK ARGUMENT!
So what’s your opinion really Esau, what how do you reconcile what has been stated????
Andre, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincere, and put some time into my response. I hope I wasn’t mistaken.
So what’s your opinion really Esau, what how do you reconcile what has been stated????
Please, do you really think I’m not familiar with the ‘techniques’ and ‘tactics’ Anti-catholics and those who are unable to defend their positions employ???
Andre,
Please tell me, how many times do you hit your boyfriend?
Andre has either created or been taught a straw man. He attacks his straw man and demands that we defend it. We have been patient and charitable in pointing out his misconceptions, but he choosis to cling to the straw man. I’m done. Good night, all.
I agree with you, SDG. I hope he’s sincere, too. I hope you are right, and my above post is wrong.
And oh, I forgot, the Catholic Church still does not believe the Bible is enough or that it is authoritative at all. You have changed it so much or rewritten it that it’s innocuous to you. Just as you threw away Luther’s Sola Scriptura principle to begin with. You always need a little bit of your tradition to prove why your tradition preaches what it preaches… Interesting….
AMAZING!
Don’t you even know that the Bible came out of the Catholic Church???
Even your Hero, Martin Luther, said in his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16:
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”
By the way, it’s not the Catholic Church who wanted to change the bible; it was Martin Luther who, in fact, purposely rewrote a verse in Romans to say we were justified by ‘Faith Alone’.
Also, in addition to throwing out the Books of the Septuagint, he also wanted to toss out the Book of James along with other books of the New Testament.
SDG, thanks for your time. I come from a Catholic family, I went to Catholic schools. I know the Catholic way of doing things, there’s a whole lot of good and beautiful things in what Popes and Priests and Fathers’ say but always a little bit of error which makes the whole doctrinal package even more dangerous as people are more easily deceived.
I believe the statements I posted are enough in themselves to prove the doctrine of Mary in the Church. I believe they are recent enough to make me believe they are part of a doctrinal package. And I believe people are not willing to face those statements head on, despite your post in regards to the Vatican II, which precede Pope John Paul’s statements. His role in reestablishing the doctrine of Mary is clear.
Just to clarify, Ratzinger actually uses the word SALVEZZA in the Funeral mass which means SALVATION.
“La beata Vergine Maria, Regina degli Apostoli e Salvezza del popolo romano, interceda presso Dio perché mostri il volto del Figlio suo benedetto al nostro Papa e consoli la Chiesa con la luce della risurrezione.”
Again, how do you honestly reconcile these statements?
Salvezza of course in the italian, translated by the Vatican from the Latin… The meaning is obviously SALVATION.
What’s dangerous, Andre, is your LACK OF UNDERSTANDING and IGNORANCE of Catholicism, not the Catholic Church, which Christ founded!
You actually think that an isolated quote is enough to prove a claim?
All you’ve been doing is presenting a caricature of Catholicism from the gloss of an Anti-Catholic!
Do you really think presenting a deliberate distorted version of Catholicism is suficient in refuting the valid claims Catholicism, from which the Bible and Christendom came from?
Please educate yourself; then, we might be able to discuss such things.
Andre wants to believe that Catholics worship Mary, and he won’t allow any facts to get in his way.
You don’t believe in Christians interceding for one another, Andre?
Esau, I’m just reading what the Pope said that’s all… Maybe he’s also ignorant about what Catholicism really preaches.
Your spirit is distubing Esau, hurling insults at people calling them HOMOSSEXUALS is right in step with the spirit of the Catholic Church that dominated the middle ages for 12 centuries. Your forefathers probably were at the frontline of the Holy Inquisition. You fit right in my friend.
Of course, Esau is correct. It is beyond dispute that the Bible every Christian knew for 1200 years fell under Luther’s meat axe. He removed whole books from the real Bible.
One of the joys of my becoming a Catholic has been that I now get to read ALL the scriptures. I won’t follow Luther’s man-made tradition, I’ll stick with the Apostolic Authority of the Church.
Andre,
You seem to be suggesting that the more “recent” JP2 quotes you’ve cited are somehow meant to reverse or go against the “preceding” teaching of Vatican II only a few years earlier, “reestablishing” teachings that are apparently contrary to the Council’s teachings.
I cannot say this strongly enough: There is no doubt that this is completely mistaken, impossible even, to anyone with the slightest conception of how Church teaching works.
First, in the life of the Church, 40 years ago is a blink of an eye. Vatican II isn’t some aging thing from long ago, it’s the Church’s latest and greatest.
More importantly, Vatican II is the most authoritative exercise of magisterial authority nearly a century and a half, since the first Vatican council. It is far more authoritative than the JP2 quotes you are citing.
Therefore, if there were a contradiction there, there is no question which would take priority over which. The authoritative Council declarations would override any contrary subsequent statements from lesser authoritative or non-authoritative sources. Catholic teaching would be what Vatican II officially taught, not what JP2 said in some public address or other non-authoritative venue.
You’re trying to trump Vatican II with quotes from speeches by the Pope. That’s not entirely unlike trying to trump the Bill of Rights and recent Supreme Court precedent from some speech made by the President.
But in fact the very idea that JP2 contradicted Vatican II and taught something different is itself ludicrous. Whereas the President might well make a speech contrary to the Supreme Court or even the Bill of Rights, JP2 was an ardent advocate of Vatican II. He never had the slightest intentions of going contrary to the Council in any way. He took for granted everything the Council said. All his teachings are to be understood in light of what the Council teaches.
So it is not that V2 is wrong, or that JP2 is wrong. What is wrong is your idea that JP2 is teaching something contrary to the Council.
Since I already showed you how the Bible teaches that St. Paul sought to “save” some, why should it bother you if Mary or the pope are said to “save” others? This in no way contradicts the fact, which JP2 and B16 would ardently affirm, that Jesus alone is our Savior.
Please, please, I beg you to consider this point. When I argued against the Catholic Church, I admit, I sometimes fell into an “any stick to beat a dog” mentality. I used arguments against the Catholic Church because I was convinced the Church was wrong, even though sometimes I hadn’t examined my arguments very closely.
Whether or not you feel that you might be making the same mistake, please consider this. Whether or not a defendant is guilty or wrongfully accused is one question; whether the evidence has been falsified or tampered with is another. Even if a defendant is guilty, it doesn’t mean the evidence hasn’t been planted.
Similarly, even if you think I am wrong about some of these points and that Catholicism is wrong, it doesn’t mean that you haven’t been fed some false arguments that you are now wrongly repeating. And consider this: Even if you think JP2 was wrong about some things, if you are mistaken about what JP2 believed, and if you are falsely accusing him of anti-Christian ideas that JP2 himself would reject, then you are bearing false witness and breaking the Ten Commandments.
Please make every effort to be as fair and honest as you can in trying to understand what JP2 was really saying and what the Church really teaches.
Andre, you requested a point by point response to your post, here’s my best shot I’m not great at this. I’ll be brief, for more detail see the posts SDG already made.
– On 5/7/97, Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to “the Virgin Mary” and urged all Christians to accept Mary as their mother
“Having created man ‘male and female,’ in the Redemption too, the Lord wanted to put the New Eve next to the New Adam. … Mary, the New Eve, thus becomes the perfect icon of the Church. She, in the divine plan, represents under the Cross redeemed humanity, which, needy of salvation, is made capable of offering a contribution to the development of the saving work.” . ((Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997). [Mary here contributes to the saving work as a human being.]
Catholics don’t believe that Mary contributes to Christ’s salvation through his passion. She helps to save souls by revealing Jesus to them just as she revealed Jesus to the world by agreeing to participate in God’s plan to become man. This quote doesn’t say Mary redeemed humanity, but that she represents redeemed humanity. Mary always says yes to God, she always aligns her will with her Son’s. In this way she represents all those who accept the salvation Christ won on the cross.
. …” John Paul II also underlined that “the history of Christian piety teaches that Mary is the path that leads to Christ, and that filial devotion to her does not at all diminish intimacy with Jesus, but rather, it increases it and leads it to very high levels of perfection.” He concluded by asking all Christians “to make room (for Mary) in their daily lives, acknowledging her providential ROLE IN THE PATH OF SALVATION.” ((Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997).
See my response to the last quote.
“At today’s general audience, Pope John Paul continued his catechesis on Mary, recalling that the Church holds, in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that she was preserved from original sin at the first moment of her existence and, as well, that ‘Mary was free from personal sin and moral imperfection throughout her life.’ The Holy Father went on to say that ‘the possibility of sinning does not spare even a Christian who is transformed or renewed by grace … unless, as the Council of Trent stated, a special privilege assures such immunity from sin. This is what happened to Mary.’
>>>> The council, stating that the Church ‘firmly holds this (privilege of Mary), … confirms its SOLID DOCTRINAL CHARACTER'” (6/19/96, Vatican Information Service, Vatican City).<<<<<
I don’t know how this shows we worship Mary or attribute Godlike qualities to her. You’ll have to explain what you’re proving here. We believe her sinlessness was a gift bestowed on her by Jesus not because it was necessary but because He found it fitting. Adam and Eve were made without sin and could have remained sinless had they so chosen yet no one accuses Christians of calling them fallen gods.
If Mary was conceived without Sin as the Pope says, she could have died to save the world and Jesus was unnecessary, wouldn’t you agree? If all have sinned according to the Bible (Rom. 3:23) and Mary didn’t, it also implies that her mother was sinless which is totally absurd.
I don’t follow the logic you used to reach these conclusions. These are not what Catholics believe. If you show me the reasoning you used to come to these positions I’ll try to interact with it. I would like to hear your answer to the question I asked earlier: If someone being sinless also necessitates that his or her mother is sinless, then why do you believe that Jesus is sinless but Mary isn’t?
The premier issue of the Roman Catholic publication Catholic Heritage displayed a front page with the title: “Mary, Mother of the Church.” In a Question and Answer column the question is asked, “At the foot of the cross, Mary shared in the mystery of the passion. True or False? Answer: True. Mary united her sorrows to those of her Son. The sorrowful and immaculate heart of Mary bled with her Son for all of mankind. For this reason, we invoke her under the title of Co-Redemptrix.”
I’m not what exactly in this quote you mean to highlight, but I’ll do my best to tackle the points I think you might have the most problem with. The title Mother of our Church refers to Mary’s position as first among believers and Jesus’ words on the cross for John (representing all of humanity) to behold his mother. This does not mean we believe Mary founded the Church, as true Catholics will be very quick defend their stance that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. The rest of the quote refers to how Mary shared in the mystery of the passion through the pain she suffered as Jesus’ Mother. You bring up Co-Redemptrix below, I’ll respond to it there.
The following random quotes from the book Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary, by John Ferraro, is intended to give an overview of Roman Catholic dogma concerning the Virgin Mary. Ferraro’s book was given the NIHIL OBSTAT (Nothing Against) and the Imprimatur, which is an official statement by the Roman Catholic Church that the book “is free of doctrinal or moral error.” Therefore, we can take these quotes as official Roman Catholic doctrine:
Careful. The NIHIL OBSTAT and Imprimatur don’t mean something is doctrine. Just because its free from error doesn’t mean Catholics are required to believe it. For example, a paper describing how the Parable of the Prodigal son is really a story about the Jews (the “good” son who resents the return of his brother) and the Gentiles (the prodigal son) can receive the NO&I, but that doesn’t mean Catholics must believe that interpretation of the parable. But you are correct that it does mean that this book is fairly reliable.
… She [Mary] is co-Redemptrix of the human race.
This isn’t an official title of Mary, so no Catholic is required to believe it. It refers to Mary’s participation in God’s plan for our redemption by bearing, raising, and following Jesus from the first moment He took on flesh all the way through His passion. It doesn’t mean she did any of the work that only God could do in redeeming us.
… The church and the saints greet her thus: “You, O Mary, together with Jesus Christ, redeemed us.”
See above.
…Mary is our co-Redemptrix because she gave us Jesus pledge of our salvation. Furthermore, she is co-Redemptrix of the human race, because with Christ she ransomed mankind from the power of Satan.
Sorry for being redundant, but see above.
…Mary is our co-Redemptrix because she suffered in her heart whatever was lacking in the passion of Christ.
Hmm… lacking in the passion of Christ. Catholics don’t believe anything was lacking in Christ’s passion. My guess is that this is being used figuratively to say that Mary offered her suffering to Christ in His passion just as we can offer up our suffering to Jesus today. Maybe someone can help me out here.
…All grace is passed from God to Jesus, from Jesus to Mary, and from Mary to us. The grace of God, cure for our ills, comes to us through Mary like water through an aqueduct.
Catholics are not required to believe this, but this author’s interpretation does not say anything contrary to Catholic doctrine. People who believe this see the way Jesus came to us through Mary’s womb and believe that He found it fitting to use his Mother in this same way in distributing God’s grace.
…She herself is the Book of Life from which God will read the names of the elect on the day of judgment.
I have no idea, this is beyond me. Can you give me this sentence in context so I can get the full idea of what the author is saying?
…To be devoted to you, O’ Mary, is a weapon of salvation which God gave to those whom He positively wants to save.
Go all the way back to my first response for my answer to this one.
That’s my shot at a point by point rebuttal. Do as you wish with it.
oops that last post was me
Esau, I’m just reading what the Pope said that’s all… Maybe he’s also ignorant about what Catholicism really preaches.
It’s usually best to assume that your interpretation of what the Pope said is wrong and then try to figure out why. The Pope is only infallible in very limited situations so it may be that you caught him in a slip up, but most of the time it’s the person challenging the Pope who got something wrong.
Your spirit is distubing Esau, hurling insults at people calling them HOMOSSEXUALS is right in step with the spirit of the Catholic Church that dominated the middle ages for 12 centuries. Your forefathers probably were at the frontline of the Holy Inquisition. You fit right in my friend.
I believe that Esau was using that as a rhetorical device and not actually trying to say that you are a homosexual. Asking you how many times you hit your boyfriend is analagous to you coming in here asking us to defend worshiping Mary and the Pope as God? If we say we can’t defend it, you condemn us for believing something we can’t defend. If we say we don’t believe it, you condemn us for not being able to defend it. The reaction you had to Esau’s question is the same type of reaction many of us have to you coming in here accusing us of things we don’t do. Yet we have tried to be helpful and give you information that can show you what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
P.S. The Catholic Church today teaches the same thing She taught in the middle ages (which is also the same thing She taught when it was founded by Jesus). And Esau’s forefathers were Protestant. Next time, it’s better to ask when you don’t know something than to assume you know it. That strategy will also help you out a lot when it comes to talking to Catholics. The people on this blog, or the forums at catholic.com, will be much happier to talk to you if you ask about issues and then discuss their answers rather than come in with guns blazing.
Esau- Tim J—
I, being a Protestant do not particularly care what Martin Luther did – or did not do with “his” Bible.
He, was a fallen man- Just like you and I.
It seems to me that anytime there are people posting who are clearly advocates of “Sola Scriptura” etc.—the come back is always to denigrade some aspect of Martin Luther —, as if this would matter!.
At least for me, this does nothing to make me see any more clearly Rome’s position.
I do not vest Martin Luther with any status of “infallibility”….this is not necessary in Protestantism— .
Very creative SDG but you have failed to qualify his statements. Why can’t you requote them and reexamine them, explain or try to make sense out of them. You’re obviously skipping the process. As the utmost authority in the CC, he must have known his Catholic theology. Ultimately you’re saying that V2 and JP2 contradict each other so the church is in doctrinal disarray. That’s no wonder really, it should however mean something for YOU.
The Pope’s statements and documents from the church that I’ve quoted as late as 1996 show that nothing has really changed in the CC. V2 was just a little counter-reformation effort that ultimately, as JP2 has shown, has not changed the CC fundamentally since the Council of Trent. For one V2 reestated the infalibility of the Pope. And now you’re telling me that this is REALLY not the case??
“And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. [Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3].
On the subject of Mary, V2 confirms adoration of Mary:
“In celebrating this annual cycle of Christ’s mysteries, holy Church honors with especial love the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, who is joined by an inseparable bond to the saving work of her Son.” [SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, Chapter 5, Par. 103.]
“All should devoutly venerate her and commend their life and apostolate to her maternal care.” APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM, Chapter 1.]
“Let priests love and venerate with filial devotion and veneration this mother of the Eternal Highpriest, Queen of Apostles and Protector of their own ministry.” PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS, Chapter 3, section 3.]
Also, in 1964 by Pope Paul VI said “nothing really changes in the traditional doctrine.”
In a recent article entitled Vatican II The Myths from the library of the “Global Catholic Network” EWTN we read:
“All that the Church taught when Vatican II began is still [Roman] Catholic teaching. The changes whether made by the Council or decided upon since, are [only] in practical matters such as the liturgy or discipline, but always leaving doctrine unchanged.”
Finally, a little personal history. My mom left the Catholic Church when she came across Mathew 15:8-9:
“These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.”
She had her Luther moment in those steps in Rome, she left ashamed of ever having believed in the inventions of the Catholic Church. Of course that makes no difference for you, you can explain this away by saying that tradition is above the Bible or that you don’t have to explain anything by the Bible as other Catholics have said.
If you’re really sincere and honest in your defense of the Catholic Church, you should stick to the Bible and try to prove your beliefs from the Bible only; it’s the only source of truth for Christians, nothing else. If you don’t agree to this, then this discussion is futile. Throwing away the Bible as the only source opens a pandora box for all kinds of heresies and absurd things, you might as well become a Muslim-Catholic-Budhist-Hindu person, after all, it makes absolutely no difference, all ways lead to a god.
I believe we do not agree on primary sources for a belief system. If you were able to show me in the Bible that Mary is also a Savior with Christ as Ratzinger and others have said, I will be a believer. Of course, that will never happen.
This is in no way a personal attack on anyone, I believe there are sincere people in the Catholic Church who will be saved. But the system made of Prelates and infallible Popes (See Vatican 2 above) that do as they please with the word and law of God will incur in the Judgment of God as described in Revelation:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
SDG, I posted my previous post before reading your last post. I will respond later. Good night.
Brian, I’m not accusing you, I’m limiting myself to quoting Catholic documents and asking for clarification at best…
I’m not sure I buy your defense of Esau, it’s really a long shot… but that’s fine, I’m more interested in cogent arguments than personal vendettas…
Blessings,
“I, being a Protestant do not particularly care what Martin Luther did…”
You should… you are following in his footsteps – or, I should say, his tradition – whether you want to acknowledge that or not.
Unless you came up with your own canon of scripture, you must have received the scriptures based on the authority and tradition of those who passed it on to you. You must have trusted someone… Luther, the Catholic Church, your Mom, somebody…
Otherwise, by what authority do YOU claim that the Bible is the word of God (besides “it says it is”)? Lots of books claim to be the word of God. I could write one tomorrow that makes the same claim.
What commended the Biblical books to the early church was the testimony and teaching of the Apostles and their successors. The books that were excluded from the canon were excluded because they did not harmonize with the Apostolic teaching and could not reliably be linked with Apostolic authority. They did not pass the Apostolic “smell test”.
So, in an earthly sense, the scriptures depend on the Apostolic authority of the Church. Read Acts. The Church did not grow out of the Bible, the Bible grew out of the Church. There simply can be no debate about that without defacing the plain facts of history.
Only the Apostolic authority of the Church could definitively recognize and proclaim an authoritative canon of books. Anything else is just someone’s opinion.
So Tim J, answer these please:
1.If the Bible is a product of the Roman Catholic Church (how absurd), you’re finally accepting the fact that the RCC has absolute control over it? This would confirm the absurd reinterpretations by the RCC, the doctrines foreign to the Bible and the Apostles such as purgatory, indulgences, the immortality of the soul, hell, adoration of Mary and the infallible Papacy to name a few.
2. If you do not agree with the total control argument, why has the RCC added many apocryphal books to the canon that directly contradict the content of the original canon established by the Apostolic church?
3. You totally ignore the active participation and protection of the inspired canon by God himself by making it a human endeavor, namely, the RCC decided on its own what was deemed important. Actually, the Bible DEPENDED on the RCC to become relevant to Christian. (!!) So the RCC can then later decide it’s no longer important? If the RCC is all powerful, couldn’t it just throw out the Bible altogether and rewrite it based on a much more “elightened” experience with God acquired for the past 2000 years?
4. You say: ‘The Catholic Church does not claim that her magisterial documents are inspired or that they are the word of God, only that they are – by the Divine will – protected from error.’ Can you substantiate that using the Bible, the ultimate word of God?? You are essentially saying that God’s will acted in the writing of the RCC documents and that they are free from error. You have just placed them in the same level as the Bible, because that’s inspiration.
5. Imagine a person lost in a desert island, without any previous knowledge of God with a Bible in hand. If he were to read it and become a believer, would he be Catholic or a true first century Christian? No brainer. In that case, by what authority would God save him if he is not part of the RCC, if he has not come “home”?
One thing is very clear in this discussion: Catholics have a terrible time resolving the tensions between what the Pope says and what in their words, the RCC “actually” teaches. He can come out flat wrong and discredit the Bible and catholics will say, He didn’t really mean THAT!!! He says, “The blood of Christ was blue.” They say, “He actually meant to say RED…” They try to explain away the contradictions and the fact that the RCC has been espousing all the same absurd doctrines and man-made saving devices it did in the Middle Ages. Nothing has really changed in the RCC since the Holy Inquisition. Vatican II has confirmed the doctrines of the RCC, including adoration of Mary as I have previously proven.
What Christianity needs is a new Reformation to awake the Apostate Protestants who is so close to the RCC that Ecumenism is actually possible. Yes, of course, under the banner of the Pope.
__________________________
Mathew 15:8-9: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”
Very creative SDG but you have failed to qualify his statements. Why can’t you requote them and reexamine them, explain or try to make sense out of them. You’re obviously skipping the process.
Andre, we’ve all been very patient, in providing the Church’s true teachings about Mary. There’s no requoting and reexamine to do. If you’ve noticed, no one has ever tried to write off a correct quotation that you made. We all agree that the Pope said what he said, you just interpret it mean something it doesn’t. And then when one of us provides evidence as to what it really means you disregard it becasue you think you already know what it means. What more do you want out of us?
Instead of interacting with what everyone wrote, you came back in your post on Jun 26, 2007 7:57:36 PM with more quotes that you claim prove that Catholics worship Mary. But they don’t, it’s the same as before. The quotes don’t say anything about worshipping or adoring Mary.
you should stick to the Bible and try to prove your beliefs from the Bible only
“I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.” We do not worship Mary or the Pope as God, You haven’t provided a single scrap of evidence that shows that Catholics do, yet you want us to prove it. There’s our proof.
If you were able to show me in the Bible that Mary is also a Savior with Christ as Ratzinger and others have said, I will be a believer.
Incredible! How is this any different that Esau asking you how many times you hit your boyfriend? Do you know how offensive it is to accuse a monotheist of polytheism? Catholics don’t believe Mary is a savior along with Christ. Pope Benedict, either as Pope or Cardinal, nor any pope, encyclical, Council Document, or Catechism has ever said anything like the that. This is in keeping with our biblical belief that we shall not have any gods besides God.
Andre, this is for your own good: When it comes to Catholicism you’ve been taught a bunch incorrect information. You think you know what you’re talking about, but you don’t. It’s not your fault, someone – who was probably at one point misinformed in the same way you were – taught you this stuff. If you want to listen, we’ve provided a ton of information here. Look through it and then come back with questions. But if you’re not willing to admit that Catholicism isn’t what you think it is, you’re never going to be satisfied with our answers.
“Only the Apostolic authority of the Church could definitively recognize and proclaim an authoritative canon of books. Anything else is just someone’s opinion.”
That’s your opinion!.
We have debated this before- so I will leave it at that…
However to say that” The Catholic Church today teaches the same thing She taught in the middle ages (which is also the same thing She taught when it was founded by Jesus).”—Brian posted above—-is contrary to all historic evidence—Care to back that up with a 1st century Patristic quote on say….the Immaculate Conception?.
1.If the Bible is a product of the Roman Catholic Church (how absurd) Check your history books, you’re finally accepting the fact that the RCC has absolute control over it? No, only you believe this. No Catholic does. This would confirm the absurd reinterpretations by the RCC, the doctrines foreign to the Bible and the Apostles such as purgatory How is purgatory foreign to the Bible or Apostles?, indulgences Look at David and Bathsheba, God forgave him when he repented but the temporal consequences of his sin remained, the immortality of the soul, hell What religion are you if you don’t believe in the immortality of the soul or hell?, adoration of Mary You haven’t provided any evidence that Catholics adore Mary and won’t accept our evidence we don’t, so I don’t know what to tell you there and the infallible Papacy The Church’s job is to spread the Gospel, it can’t spread heresy or it’s not Christ’s Church to name a few.
2. If you do not agree with the total control argument We don’t and most of Christianity doesn’t, why do you even propose this?, why has the RCC added many apocryphal books to the canon It hasn’t. If Catholics added books to the Bible, why does the Orthodox Church who separated from the Catholic Church 500 years before the Protestant Revolution have the same books in their bible as Catholics do? Maybe you should be asking why Luther removed books from the Bible. that directly contradict the content of the original canon They don’t. established by the Apostolic church? Who is this “Apostolic church” and when did they establish their canon of the bible?
3. You totally ignore the active participation and protection of the inspired canon by God himself by making it a human endeavor No we don’t, do you have any evidence for this? Have you even read Jimmy’s post that started this thread. It talks about how Catholics believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. , namely, the RCC decided on its own what was deemed important. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit, working through the Church created the canon Actually, the Bible DEPENDED on the RCC to become relevant to Christian. (!!) Well yes, that’s why Christ established his Church. To spread his Word to all nations. But we don’t believe this in the devious way you imply So the RCC can then later decide it’s no longer important? No it can’t and it never has If the RCC is all powerful It’s not. The Church is subordinate to her Bridegroom, Jesus, couldn’t it just throw out the Bible altogether and rewrite it based on a much more “elightened” experience with God acquired for the past 2000 years? No the Church cannot contradict the Bible or itself, the Holy Spirit will not allow that to happen.
4. You say: ‘The Catholic Church does not claim that her magisterial documents are inspired or that they are the word of God, only that they are – by the Divine will – protected from error.’ Can you substantiate that using the Bible, the ultimate word of God?? What? You want us to use the Bible to prove the magisterium isn’t inspired. Umm… the magisterium isn’t in the Bible and therefore its not inspired. Done. You are essentially saying that God’s will acted in the writing of the RCC documents and that they are free from error. You have just placed them in the same level as the Bible, because that’s inspiration. You’re essentially saying that you don’t understand what terms like “inpiration,” “Divine Will,” and “free from error” (aka infallible) mean. Your your neighbor who has faith in Jesus dies tonight he may be saved by God’s divine will, but that doesn’t mean his salvation is inspired like the Bible was. 2+2=4 is an infallible statement, but it’s in no way inspired.
5. Imagine a person lost in a desert island, without any previous knowledge of God with a Bible in hand. If he were to read it and become a believer, would he be Catholic or a true first century Christian? No brainer. If he allowed the Holy Spirit to guide him in his reading he would be both a Catholic and a true first century Christian. Don’t create a false dichotomy when there isn’t one. Christianity depends on community, our deserted friend may not understand the fine points of doctrine but if he submits his will to God he’ll be 100% Catholic. In that case, by what authority would God save him if he is not part of the RCC, if he has not come “home”? God would save him by His own authority, only God justifies us as I’m sure you know. Why would you assume he’s not “come home”? Again, watch out for the whole false dichotomy thing
One thing is very clear in this discussion: Catholics have a terrible time resolving the tensions between what the Pope says and what in their words, the RCC “actually” teaches. What!!! What the Church teaches is very clear. You’re the one who can’t interpret the plain meaning of the words (which, by the way, only helps to support the Catholic Church’s claim that Tradition is necessary to properly interpret the bible). He can come out flat wrong and discredit the Bible When did he do that. No Pope has ever done that. Please provide some proof and catholics will say, He didn’t really mean THAT!!! He says, “The blood of Christ was blue.” They say, “He actually meant to say RED…” You’ve got it backwards. The Pope is the one saying RED, while you misinterpret his words to say BLUE. Catholics and the pope are on the same page. Do you really think the Catholic Church could have lasted for 2000 years if the situation were as fragile as you describe? (For the record, blood in our veins is blue. I’m not sure how the biology of glorified bodies works so Christ may not have any blue blood now, but for 33 years some of his blood was always blue.) They try to explain away the contradictions What contradictions and the fact that the RCC has been espousing all the same absurd doctrines and man-made saving devices it did in the Middle Ages The Catholic Church has taught and will always teach the same thing, you haven’t shown anything but your understanding of the Church to be absurd and man-made. Nothing has really changed in the RCC since the Holy Inquisition. Absolutely true, now you’re learning. Vatican II has confirmed the doctrines of the RCC True again, I think you’re getting the hang of this, including adoration of Mary as I have previously proven. Catholics do not adore Mary and you haven’t provided any proof. Everything you’ve quoted is about honor and veneration, you’ve merely misinterpreted it to claim Catholics adore Mary.
That’s my quick reply. If you’re really interested in finding out what the Catholic Church teaches, you’re on an apologetic blog right now. Browse around and read old posts before you tell Catholics what they believe. There’s a categorical listing in the left-hand column so you can look up topics like Mary, the Pope, and the Church, etc.
However to say that” The Catholic Church today teaches the same thing She taught in the middle ages (which is also the same thing She taught when it was founded by Jesus).”—Brian posted above—-is contrary to all historic evidence—Care to back that up with a 1st century Patristic quote on say….the Immaculate Conception?.
Do you have any 1st century Patristic quotes? I’m sure people would be dying to see them. That would be an earth-shattering archaeological discovery. Shall we also be required to provide a 1st century Patristic quote that says wearing blue jeans is not a mortal sin? I hear many Catholics fancy wearing them at Mass.
I’m not an expert on the Church Fathers but I’m sure those who are can provide evidence to support the Immaculate Conception (though I doubt first century evidence). What first century historical evidence do you have against the Immaculate Conception? Furthermore, when has the Catholic Church ever taught against the Immaculate Conception?
Brian, thanks for your time, however you have not quoted one single Bible verse of the ‘inspired word’ to back up your arguments. Nice try though….
Read my comments on the Dr. B Comes Home…
Trivia: The Catholics in South America are the easiest to convert to Protestantism because of their utter ignorance of the word of God. When you show them a couple of verses, they are at once interested because it’s something totally new for them. I know, I’ve been there, my mom does it every day and we’re scoring big against the errors of the Whore of Revelation, a false system of salvation by faith in the RCC and works. People, wake up and return to the word of God only!
“And I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities'” (Revelation 18:4,5).
I know I will soon be banned because you can’t refute my arguments using the Bible so I will leave you with my message:
Mathew 15:8-9: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”
Andre,
Brian, thanks for your time, however you have not quoted one single Bible verse of the ‘inspired word’ to back up your arguments. Nice try though….
I quoted the first commandment in my post on Jun 27, 2007 4:26:10 AM. It pretty much proves that Catholics don’t do all the stuff you claim they do. Other than that quote:
I can’t use the bible to prove that Catholics don’t worship Mary because 1) the bible prohibits worshiping Mary and 2) Catholics don’t worship Mary.
I can’t use the bible to prove that Catholics don’t worship the Pope because 1) the bible prohibits worshiping the Pope and 2) Catholics don’t worship the Pope.
I can’t use the bible to prove that Catholics replace the bible with their own man-made tradition because 1) the bible prohibits doing that and 2) Catholics don’t do it.
I don’t understand what you mean by biblical proofs of this stuff. When you’re talking to your friend about last night’s baseball game, do you make him give biblical proofs? You’re asking us to disprove your false assumptions about Catholic doctrine, the truth of what that doctrine actually says is in the doctrine itself. If I accuse you of wearing a red shirt when your shirt is blue, you’re going to point to your shirt not the Bible as evidence.
You haven’t asked a single question asking someone about what Catholics believe. If you asked why Catholics vernerate Mary so much, or why they support the primacy of the Pope you might get some biblical responses from people on here. But you’re not going to get biblical answers to your false and non-biblical allegations against the Catholic Church.
What if I turned the tables. Can you use the Bible to prove that that Catholics worship Mary or the Pope? While your at it can you use the Bible to support the following beliefs that you have: “If Mary was conceived without Sin … she could have died to save the world and Jesus was unnecessary…” and “If all have sinned according to the Bible (Rom. 3:23) and Mary didn’t, it also implies that her mother was sinless…”?
Oh look, I do need to be in the RCC to be saved:
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” Bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII, infallible pronouncement
Brian, those are your beliefs, not mine. It’s logical that if Mary was without sin, she
1. Didn’t need a Savior; (Jesus came to save the Lost)
2. If necessary, could have been a sacrifice for mankind because she blameless, without sin.
Those are the implications of your belief in her SINLESSNESS… Can you see this??
Oh look, I do need to be in the RCC to be saved:
Andre. Please, so you don’t embarrass yourself, stop telling Catholics what they believe. You’re correct in quoting Pope Boniface VIII but you don’t understand it in it’s totality. I’m sure you’ve seen people who can find one verse from the Bible to justify almost everything, that same type of thing happens when you quote one sentence from a Church document without using it in context. Here’s a link to a page that explains the full Catholic belief: http://catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp. It has the NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR so you can trust that its a reliable source.
Brian, those are your beliefs, not mine. It’s logical that if Mary was without sin, she
1. Didn’t need a Savior; (Jesus came to save the Lost)
2. If necessary, could have been a sacrifice for mankind because she blameless, without sin.
Those are the implications of your belief in her SINLESSNESS… Can you see this??
No. These are your beliefs not ours. That’s my whole point. Show from the Bible that if Mary is sinless she didn’t require a savior. Show from the Bible that Catholics believe that Mary didn’t need a savior. Show from the Bible that if Mary is sinless she could have redeemed all of mankind. Show from the Bible that Catholics believe Mary could have redeemed all of mankind. Show from the Bible that these are the implications of the Catholic belief in Mary’s sinlessness. I can’t see it. Teach me.
So sinless people (if there were any) also need a savior? What am I missing?
In that same line angels, who are SINLESS also need salvation?
If anyone could have been born sinless before Christ, his incarnation would be totally useless. If you can’t see these implications, there’s nothing I can do for you.
I cannot show any of claims on Mary from the Bible because they are not there, and that silence should tell you something. She was just an instrument to bring Jesus to earth. She remains obscure throughout Jesus ministry and NT writers totally ignored her. Jesus would have made clear mention of her, but he didn’t even call her mother in the NT. Show me where he did. He called her WOMAN.
Paul, the greatest apologist and systematizer of the Christian faith, who was so much detailing in how to practice the Christian faith, in his 14 epistles never ever refers to Mary.
On the contrary, when he had every chance to exalt Mary, as any Roman Catholic would do, as he addressed the Incarnation of Jesus, he just said that He was “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). Now, if Paul had the Catholic mindset that would be a golden opportunity for him to exalt Mary as “mother of God”, “queen of heaven”, “eternally virgin”, etc., etc., but, for the great disappointment of the worshipers of Mary, he simply ignored any special role on her part in the gospel message.
Furthermore, you can’t rely on the Nihil Obstat argument because:
1. Catholics do not all agree that N.O. is authoritative (See posts above by SDG and Franklin Jennings above). In that case NO has promoted all kinds of contradictions among RCC authors.
2. Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary, by John Ferraro, is intended to give an overview of Roman Catholic dogma concerning the Virgin Mary. Ferraro’s book was given the NIHIL OBSTAT and the Imprimatur. The book that refers to Mary as co-redemptrix, SAVIOR WITH CHRIST. Quoting:
.. She [Mary] is co-Redemptrix of the human race.
… The church and the saints greet her thus: “You, O Mary, together with Jesus Christ, redeemed us.”
…Mary is our co-Redemptrix because she gave us Jesus pledge of our salvation. Furthermore, she is co-Redemptrix of the human race, because with Christ she ransomed mankind from the power of Satan.
…Mary is our co-Redemptrix because she suffered in her heart whatever was lacking in the passion of Christ.
…All grace is passed from God to Jesus, from Jesus to Mary, and from Mary to us. The grace of God, cure for our ills, comes to us through Mary like water through an aqueduct.
…She herself is the Book of Life from which God will read the names of the elect on the day of judgment.
…To be devoted to you, O’ Mary, is a weapon of salvation which God gave to those whom He positively wants to save.
I rest my case.
Andre,
Rest your case on what — a multitude of fallacies and ignorance?
You haven’t even read about the early Christian church and all of a sudden you claim you’ve won your case purely — but you’ve done so only due to a fallacy of ignorance, among many other fallacies you’ve capitalized on!
Genesis 3:15 that says: I will place enmity between thee and the WOMAN, thy seed and her seed. This speaks of that absolute sort of enmity or opposition between Jesus and Mary and the Devil.
Hence, in Revelation 12, you see the hatred of Lucifer not only for Christ but for Mary, the Woman. The devil seeks after the WOMAN because the woman is the source of the Incarnation of all this plan of God coming to pass.
Why don’t you first READ about the Early Church Fathers, the ones who were even disciples of the Apostles themselves, who were passed down the Authority AND Tradition of the Church — about what THEY had to say regarding The New Eve!
You are wrong, Esau; he conclusively refuted his straw man.
Now, let’s ignore him. Please.
I am more interested in reading what the Bible says about the issues, not the church fathers. Historically, the RCC has been wrong on many social issues which we’ll not get into here…
Esau expresses the spirit of anger and spite that RCath. have towards those who are not under the Roman Pontiff. Falacies are what RC authors are writing, I’m just quoting them. You are very creative in your comments but the fact is, Mary is a non-entity in the NT. The new Eve analysis is foreign to the Bible. Eve and Mary are never mentioned together, for one… so there you have it.
Your spirit is disturbing, you are the only one calling people ignorant and other things. It’s the argument of verbal violence when your arguments have been refuted. You have nothing my friend, nothing!
I rest my case, Esau.
Eve and Mary are never mentioned together, for one… so there you have it.
Oh my gosh!
YOU REALLY ARE IGNORANT!
Even in my Protestant church, people knew something about TYPOLOGY!
Get a clue, read up first on the Bible and about TYPOLOGY!
You don’t know ANYTHING, do you?
In order to intelligently discuss these issues, you first NEED TO BE INFORMED YOURSELF!
It’s almost like a Pre-schooler criticizing government policies!
You’re really pathetic in that:
(1) If you really are an ex-Catholic, you make Catholics look bad because of your IGNORANCE of what the Catholic Church actually teaches
(2) If you are now Protestant, you make even Protestants look bad because YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THE BASICS ABOUT THE BIBLE!
PATHETIC!
So sinless people (if there were any) also need a savior? What am I missing?
In that same line angels, who are SINLESS also need salvation?
If anyone could have been born sinless before Christ, his incarnation would be totally useless. If you can’t see these implications, there’s nothing I can do for you.
The part you’re missing is that Catholics don’t believe Mary was sinless of her own accord. No one, not the saintliest of saints, can choose to be born without original sin [I think you’ll agree this is biblical]. We believe that Jesus rewarded her with this for partipating in His plan for redemption [this is the part where Catholics make a leap of faith, feel free to agree or disagree with it but hopefully you’ll see that the reasons Catholics believe it are biblically based]. Participating in God’s plan for redemption means bringing him into the world [biblical] and raising him [biblical] and sharing her sorrow with him at calvary [biblical], not that she explicitly achieved any of Christ’s passionate suffering [biblical]. So without Jesus as our savior [biblical], and without Mary’s fiat (response of “yes” to God) [biblical], Catholics don’t believe Mary would be sinless [biblical].
The rest of the biblical interpretations you give are your own. For example, my interpretation of Jesus calling Mary “Woman” at Cana alludes to her as the new Eve. Mary is what God created woman to be, and as such Jesus listens to her and manifests himself publicly. That’s how the Holy Spirit has led me to interpret it. You’re free to see things your way, but I would hope this example shows that there is more than one way to interpret a passage. I don’t have time to go through everything you cite and you probably won’t want to listen anyway.
Furthermore, you can’t rely on the Nihil Obstat argument
What argument will you accept? I don’t know what to tell you. If you won’t accept the Nihil Obstat, why are you talking to anyone here. Nothing we say comes with a seal claiming it’s free from error. If you’ll only accept the most official of Catholic teachings, go buy a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read it (or read it for free online). When it lists footnotes to a Bible verse, go look it up. When it references a Church Document, go look it up on the Vatican’s web site. If that’s too daunting a task, you’ve got to rely on other sources. I recommend the forums at catholic.com. You’ll find a lot more people over there than you will here and you can start a thread about anything you want so you won’t get warned about going off topic.
Immediately after you state that you don’t trust the Nihil Obstat you site a book with the Nihil Obstat to “prove” that Catholics worship Mary. You could at least give us the benefit of playing by the same set of rules you hold us up to. Anyway, I already responded to your list of quotes from the book. If you’d like a biblical verse to support something I said, ask about it specifically instead of regurgitating the same cut and paste list over and over again.
Andre,
I started to write a brief response explaining why Mary needed a Savior precisely in order to be immaculately conceived.
But I realized that wasn’t going to help. I don’t think that you are invested in trying to understand Catholic teaching.
I don’t even think you’re all that interested in changing people’s minds or helping anyone. You may think we’re in error, but you aren’t here to try to help anyone.
I know when I’m talking to a sincere but misguided Protestant who loves Jesus and is genuinely concerned that I and my fellow Catholics are separated from the truth.
That’s not happening here.
I also know when I’m talking to an argumentative but intellectually curious Protestant who likes to dust it up but is more interested in getting it right than winning every point, who believes that Catholics are wrong but doesn’t assume that everything he believes about them is necessarily correct, and is secure enough in his own position to cheerfully concede a point to the other side now and then because he’s sanguine it won’t affect the basic outcome.
That’s not happening here either.
You are here for reasons that have to do with you. Not with us. Not with discussion. Not with Jesus. You.
What your reasons may be, I don’t pretend to know. But I know that you are wasting your time, and probably that of anyone inveigled into trying to untangle arguments you haven’t bothered to cross-examine yourself.
Andre wrote:
“Nothing has really changed in the RCC since the Holy Inquisition.”
Yay! Thanks for noticing. Sure, you could have gone further and stated that the Church hasn’t really changed in nearly 2000 years, but, hey, I know a compliment when I see one.
SDG and Brian,
This discussion is just confirming to me that Catholics are so blinded by tradition that they can’t rely solely on the Bible.
My analogy of the N.O. tried to express that, even though the N.O. is considered as authoritative by Catholics, SDG has played down its role in setting doctrine when referring to Mary as co-savior and I quote:
>>>>Careful. The NIHIL OBSTAT and Imprimatur don’t mean something is doctrine. Just because its free from error doesn’t mean Catholics are required to believe it. <<<< by SDG I then quoted the book on Mary to show that because of the N.O, the book would be considered authoritative on doctrine. But obviously the book on Mary reveals more than you would like to admit on Catholicism, and it's impossible to refute, at least not logically. You are well versed in the RCC way of twisting everything and creating new false doctrines which have NO Biblical basis. No wonder Protestantism has been so successful for 5 centuries. You may have some pitiful cases of people returning to the RCC but thousands are leaving everyday, precisely because of doctrinal falacies and the spirit of deceit and hatred expressed by some here. Finally, my posts have been mostly based on what Catholic authors and Popes and Priests have said, not my own MISUNDERSTANDING. The statements are clear and any non-catholic person would understand them as I did. I'm not making this up.
So the Holy Inquisition is a compliment to you Elijah!! I meant to embarass you… You might as well be a modern Nazi.
I noticed that, too, Elijah. One commenter complains that RCC teaching has changed over and over again, and another complains that it has not changed at all in 1000 years.
Both wrong, and neither understands why.
I pray that Andre will be set free from this ignorance of Christ and His Church.
Andre, why do you follow this man-made tradition of the “Bible alone”? It’s not in the Bible. If it is, please find it for me.
While you’re at it, find me any reference to the Sinner’s Prayer.
This discussion is just confirming to me that Catholics are so blinded by tradition that they can’t rely solely on the Bible.
Yes, how dare the Catholic Church, the Church Christ founded, follow Tradition AND Scripture.
Hmmmm…
Didn’t even St. Paul say: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” (2Thes 2:15)
How dare the Church actually follow that!
And didn’t St. Paul describe the Church as “The Pillar & Ground of the Truth”????
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1Tm 3:15)
Didn’t Christ Himself say:
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (Mt18:17-18)
Hmmm… Why didn’t Christ say “GO AND CONSULT SCRIPTURE!” but, instead, said “TELL THE CHURCH!”
So the Holy Inquisition is a compliment to you Elijah!! I meant to embarass you… You might as well be a modern Nazi.
Godwin’s Law invoked!
Wait, now I know!
Maybe it has something to do with this:
Mt 16:18:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Christ must’ve been an IDIOT!
He SHOULD’VE said “I WILL WRITE MY BOOK!”
It’s any wonder how the BIBLE even came to be!
Oh no, wait — wasn’t the Catholic Church responsible for the Bible as well????
Even FF Bruce, Dean of Evangelical Christians, a respected Scholar, says how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it.
Of course, Martin Luther 1100 years later would KICK OUT many of the Books of the Septuagint as well as recommend the EXCLUSION of the Book of James as well as other books in the New Testament — but THAT’S OKAY since he HAD THE AUTHORITY, right???
This, right here, is why conversation is not just useless, but impossible.
Whenever one party in a conversation is convinced that the other side is “blinded,” there is no conversation. There is only you telling us why we’re wrong. You are immune from any danger of learning anything, because what can blind people possibly have to teach you?
Here is the strongest rebuttal that you may be able to hear: A competent professional anti-Catholic, such as James White, who actually knows something about Church teaching, would tell you that you are wrong on some points, and would advise you not to use some of your arguments.
Incidentally, you mistakenly attributed the clarification about the nihil obstat. The clarification is quite correct — you are wrong about the significance of the nihil obstat — but I didn’t mention it myself.
Andre,
I was the one who said that, but here’s my full quote:
Careful. The NIHIL OBSTAT and Imprimatur don’t mean something is doctrine. Just because its free from error doesn’t mean Catholics are required to believe it. For example, a paper describing how the Parable of the Prodigal son is really a story about the Jews (the “good” son who resents the return of his brother) and the Gentiles (the prodigal son) can receive the NO&I, but that doesn’t mean Catholics must believe that interpretation of the parable. But you are correct that it does mean that this book is fairly reliable.
Something that might help explain it even more is that a Nihil Obstat isn’t issued by the Pope or even anyone at the Vatican but by a local bishop. I can’t get into a more technical explanation than that, maybe someone else can find a link to a source that explains it. But I never said that the Nihil Obstat is unreliable.
I don’t know what else to say. Statements don’t always mean what you (Andre) interpret them to mean. If they did, you would be guilty of doing exactly the same thing you accuse the Catholic Church of doing. You’re trying to understand the Catholic Church through an anti-Catholic paradigm, which makes it impossible to see what the Catholic Church really says. I understand what it’s like, my wife is Protestant. You can’t really understand the other side until you learn to see things from their worldview. I’m currently attending classes at her church to help me do that.
I strongly suspect that Andre does not care what Protestant scholars like F.F. Bruce have to say about anything, because they are not Seventh Day Adventists. They worship on Sunday, which means (to him) that they are under the spell of – and tainted by – the Catholic Church.
Don’t you know that only SDAs are real Christians? Everyone else is going to hell.
Of course I can’t use my arguments in this fourm, they are Biblical and you don’t accept the Bible only, you have to add the corrupt tradition of the RCC to justify what you believe in! So this a waste of time!
If Christ founded the Catholic church, where’s the name ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE BIBLE? Well, it’s not and yet for you that makes no difference, because the Pope is above the Bible and he can change it as he pleases! After all, THE LORD GOD THE POPE is your GOD on Earth. And MARY IS A SAVIOR WITH CHRIST FOR CATHOLICS, as approved by the POPE in his NO. Without MARY there’s no Salvation, according to the Pope.
_________________________
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:8-9
Last advice: Just be careful, if you have kids, don’t let them ever get close to a Priest, after all they CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT by the authority of given by Christ. Like Bishop Mahoney said in his deposition, when asked if a Priest should be fired if he abused a child he said: “NO”… hum… probably meanng NIHIL OBSTAT.. ahahahhaaha
Do SDAs keep the Feast of Booths?
TIM J, the only church that has officially said that is the Caholic church:
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” Bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII, infallible pronouncement
because the Pope is above the Bible and he can change it as he pleases! After all, THE LORD GOD THE POPE is your GOD on Earth. And MARY IS A SAVIOR WITH CHRIST FOR CATHOLICS, as approved by the POPE in his NO. Without MARY there’s no Salvation, according to the Pope.
Andre,
It must surely be the sign of the highest intelligence to defeat an opponent that one has all but fabricated in his head rather than the actual opponent himself!
You didn’t even read my comments above; study where the Bible, in fact, came from; know anything about the early Christian Church and how the name ‘Catholic’ came to be; actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to know what the Church really teaches; read the source documents which you obtained distorted quotes from; of course, all a sign of your great intelligence, no doubt!
If Christ founded the Catholic church, where’s the name ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE BIBLE? Well, it’s not and yet for you that makes no difference, because the Pope is above the Bible and he can change it as he pleases! After all, THE LORD GOD THE POPE is your GOD on Earth. And MARY IS A SAVIOR WITH CHRIST FOR CATHOLICS, as approved by the POPE in his NO. Without MARY there’s no Salvation, according to the Pope.
Holy calf dude! You’re right the name Roman Catholic Church isn’t in the bible. By the way, since I’m such a biblically ignorant Catholic, could you show me where “Seventh Day Adventist” is in the bible. Anyway, the “Roman” part was appended by Protestants because they didn’t like the Catholic Church’s monopoly on the the word Catholic. This created quite the oxymoron indeed. Of course, you’re a smart fella so you know that oxymorons are still true even though the words imply a contradiction.
As for the rest of your post, what a waste. We’ve typed thousands of characters to show that Catholics do not in fact worship Mary or the Pope and all you can come back with is “Andre says so, it must be true.”
For you the new Pope said it in 2005 she is the “Savior of the People of Rome” so it must be true… Oh wait, he really DIDN’T mean that….
For you the new Pope said it in 2005 she is the “Savior of the People of Rome” so it must be true… Oh wait, he really DIDN’T mean that….
Andre wrote on June 27, 2007, 11:00 AM: “If Christ founded the Catholic church, where’s the name ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE BIBLE?”
He also wrote on June 27, 2007, 10:28 AM: “No wonder Protestantism has been so successful for 5 centuries.”
So where’s the name “Protestantism” in the Bible?
Andre,
I hope the Police catches child molesters like you and neuter you for the evil you do!
On Jun 27, 2007 7:44:25 AM Andre said “Oh look, I do need to be in the RCC to be saved” so it must be true.
Thanks Esau, so your initial insult was true after all… You have chosen not to act on pedophiles and that is your responsibility. The police will do what they can, until the Pope steps in…
“Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” Bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII, infallible pronouncement
????
oh for pity’s sake, Andre, educate yourself.
Thanks Esau, so your initial insult was true after all… You have chosen not to act on pedophiles and that is your responsibility. The police will do what they can, until the Pope steps in…
Amazing… nothing learned at all!
(Esau, brother, rein it in. Do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.)
The ‘pervert’ comes here and accuses the Catholic Church of teaching:
1. Mary IS A SAVIOR, EQUAL TO CHRIST.
2. The Pope is God
3. The Vatican and CChurch have the authority to change the Bible and the Law of God as it pleases
After providing him with materials addressing what the Church actually teaches, he IGNORES them and continues with his BASELESS accusations:
1. Mary IS A SAVIOR, EQUAL TO CHRIST.
2. The Pope is God
3. The Vatican and CChurch have the authority to change the Bible and the Law of God as it pleases
This guy isn’t interested in a discussion at all —
ANDRE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN HIS PERVERSIONS!
SDG I have educated myself and here is the confirmation that I needed:
“Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. […]
“Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.” [THANKS SDG!!!]
“Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND TO THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF IS REQUIRED AS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION.”
Do you believe it now?
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:8-9
Andre, Catholics believe every single thing in your last post. However, we disagree with your interpretation that your quote from Matthew refers to the Catholic Church. Where in that quote does it say the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church if you prefer?
Andre,
Why do you continue to molest children?
Don’t you know how evil that is?
Don’t you know how evil you are?
Brian, what do you think it means?
Andre, do you know (or care) about the significance of the word “knowing” in the sentence you quoted?
Did you notice this statement?
You might want to look into that part a bit more. Your salvation could conceivably depend upon it.
Andre,
Get ready to suffer the fires of Hell, like all the Judas Iscariots of the church who have committed similar evil, for molesting young children!
YOU WILL PAY!!!
Mt 18:5-6
5 And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.
6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
And, Andre, remember what St. Paul says about HOMOSEXUALS:
1 COR 6:9-10
9 ¶ Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:
10 Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.
Esau. Brother. Rein it in. Do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.
You should send this email to you Priest, Esau. He is the one probably battling homosexuals urges as we speak…
Esau, you are so good at quoting Scripture when it seem to be in you favor… Just like Satan knew his Bible well when he tempted Jesus… Are you not acting like his follower? He is the accuser of the Brethren. I pray for your soul my friend.
We don’t accept “the Bible alone” because that doctrine is nowhere in the Bible. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura refutes itself.
Of course, that has been pointed out several times before and has been ignored.
I dare our visitor to try to show where it says in the Bible that we *must* show him where it says in the Bible.
Andre,
In Matthew 15:8-9 Jesus uses Isiah’s words to condemn the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and hence all who engage in the behavior.
But how do you know it applies to the Catholic Church. You can’t just pick a quote from the bible and stick it on your enemies like a bumper sticker. Just because a Bible verse uses the word “tradition” in a negative way doesn’t mean it’s about the Catholic Church. And it doesn’t mean it condemns all tradition, only the traditions of men. In fact, the Catholic Church itself allows much more freedom in interpreting the bible than you do with the way you stuff scripture into your little anti-Catholic box. How do you know this verse isn’t about you and the way you twist scripture to fit your puny idea of god instead of letting it reveal the one true living God to you?
Esau, you are so good at quoting Scripture when it seem to be in you favor… Just like Satan knew his Bible well when he tempted Jesus… Are you not acting like his follower? He is the accuser of the Brethren. I pray for your soul my friend.
Andre,
You’re very good at quoting scripture when it seems to be in your favor. You know your bible well just like Satan when he tempted Jesus. You’re not acting like his follower; you are accusing your fellow believers in Christ. How do we know you aren’t a demon or even the Deceiver himself?
Heheh, just read what Godwin’s Law is. Funny.
I dare our visitor to try to show where it says in the Bible that we *must* show him where it says in the Bible.
Come on Bill, that’s not nice. You know Andre can’t answer that. The Bible’s just going to tell him to turn to the Church when there’s a disagreement. Then he’ll really be in a pickle. Besides, Andre has already shown that he doesn’t have to live up to the standards he sets for others. Hmm… I wonder what Matthew 15:8-9 says about that???
Brian good point, see where that applies to you and I will see where it applies to me.
We are all subject to Christ’s teachings on man-made ideas. However, the RCC has not only invented extra rituals, cerimonies and doctrines but has also filled them with saving significance. Many of the RCC doctrines are foreign to the word of God and man-made such as baptism of infants (which many protestants kept), the purgatory, Mariology, Sunday observance, indulgences, the Papacy, the need to obey the Pope to be saved, to name a few. Those are extra-biblical, Jesus never taught them so they qualify as man-made commandments and for you they are necessary for salvation as previously proven by Pope Boniface and Pius XII.
Please remember, we are looking for CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL biblical evidence of the above. There’s none.
So quoting your own sources is accusing you? Interesting… So you are all indeed confused about what you believe in…
Please remember, we are looking for CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL biblical evidence of the above. There’s none.
Andre, Do you ever wear blue jeans? If you do please find the CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL biblical evidence that allows you to do so.
Man, if you’re going to be anti-Catholic at least do it right. Follow SDG’s advice and google James White. He’s got lots of great anti-Catholic material.
Those are extra-biblical, Jesus never taught them so they qualify as man-made commandments and for you they are necessary for salvation as previously proven by Pope Boniface and Pius XII.
By your reasoning sola-scriptura is a man-made commandment because Jesus never taught it in the bible. You’ve just condemned yourself by your own statements.
Andre,
Why do my comments OFFEND you????
If I make such accusations, the accusations MUST be TRUE since I say they are TRUE!
By the way, “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible either; guess that’s another thing the Catholic Church invented!
By the way, Andre, do you really study the Bible?
I know Protestants who actually, but you???
I HIGHLY DOUBT IT!
Please take a look at Matthew 18:17 in the Bible:
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Do you know the actual GREEK WORD used there for the word “hear” here in terms of the church?
The Greek word used in Mt 18:17 is parakouo.
In order to communicate the severity of disobedience to the Church, Christ used the strongest language possible.
This means to “disobey”!
In fact, it is from this word we get parakoe which is the same word used for Adam’s disobedience in Rom 5:19. This is quite significant since there’s another word which could have been used instead for disobedience and this is the Greek word: apeitheia.
Furthermore, Jesus compares those who disobey the Church with two worst groups of people that the Jews despised at the time. He says he who rejects the Church is to be treated as a heathen or a publican (other translations say a gentile or a tax collector).
Hence, “Excommunication”. This means that if one does not accept the teaching or the proclamation of the Church, this person ought to be ‘excommunicated’.
The consequences mean that if one does not accept the teachings or the proclamation of the Church, he is to be excommunicated (i.e., separated from communion with the Church and the Sacraments); if one is excommunicated, there is a “spiritual death” since one is outside the divine life flow that comes through the sacraments and the Church.
Jesus did establish His Church (Mt 16:18) and placed upon certain individuals His Authority.
What we have in Matthew 16 is Jesus’ Promise; that he would give the keys to Peter; he promised the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the context of Matt 16 makes plain that there would be successors of Peter
What is key here is understanding that first of all, we’re talking about the successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He is the one to whom the keys of the kingdom is communicated and the way that that happens, we see in the Book of Acts Chapter 1 when Judas died, it was Peter who made the rules for how – I mean, he basically, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, quotes if you look at Acts Chapter 1 right around verses 19, 20 and 21; he quotes Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 and he puts those two verses together and he says we’ve got to choose a replacement for Judas and then they did so.
In other words, Peter makes the rules as far as how we’re going to go about electing bishops in the future, the successors of the Apostles.
But, that was put into place before Peter dies, obviously, so he could have successors and we have a 1st Century testament to this in St. Clement of Rome who in Par 44 of his work called the Epistle to the Corinthians – this is Pope Clement, the 3rd Successor of St. Peter, who is also mentioned in the New Testament, by the way – he tells us, “The Apostles knew through perfect foreknowledge that strife would arise amongst the Office of Bishop. Therefore, they made arrangements that other approved men should succeed to their ministry so that after they have died, other approved men could succeed to their ministry.”
In other words, YOU DON’T KNOW JACK so PLEASE STUDY BEFORE YOU MAKE SUCH RIDICULOUS AND IGNORANT CLAIMS!
Esau, at this point I don’t think Andre believes in the Trinity. It’s not CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY defined in the Bible.
In other thoughts. If God intended the Bible to be an instruction manual He would have designed it that way. God gave us the Bible so that we could know Him intimately not learn how to operate him like a cappuccino machine. That’s why instead of being a flat, straightforward rulebook it’s full of histories and songs and prophecies and prayers and poems and parables and stories all with multiple levels of meaning. It’s as mysterious as God Himself.
Andre, you have utterly failed to give CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL biblical evidence for YOUR beliefs, including your refusal to keep the Lord’s Day as Christians have done since the book of Acts.
You prefer to follow the traditions of men… and women. You are counting on the Gospel According to William Miller, Ellen Harmon and Joseph Bates to save you.
How do you attack the Catholic Church when you can’t even trace your religion back farther than the nineteenth century? Before that, Adventism didn’t exist.
The Bible says to test the spirits. Paul said if someone makes a prophecy and it fails to happen, then it can’t have been from God. Adventism is founded on a failed prophecy, no matter how you twist words and try to maintain that Miller DIDN’T REALLY MEAN what he said. Christianity – my faith – is founded on the resurrection of Christ… a true prophecy.
Andre, you have utterly failed to give CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL biblical evidence for YOUR beliefs, including your refusal to keep the Lord’s Day as Christians have done since the book of Acts.
You prefer to follow the traditions of men… and women. You are counting on the Gospel According to William Miller, Ellen Harmon and Joseph Bates to save you.
How do you attack the Catholic Church when you can’t even trace your religion back farther than the nineteenth century? Before that, Adventism didn’t exist.
The Bible says to test the spirits. Paul said if someone makes a prophecy and it fails to happen, then it can’t have been from God. Adventism is founded on a failed prophecy, no matter how you twist words and try to maintain that Miller DIDN’T REALLY MEAN what he said. Christianity – my faith – is founded on the resurrection of Christ… a true prophecy.
Let’s see if the Sola Scripture is a PROTESTANT only principle:
Augustine [A PROTESTANT??], 1100 years before Luther
“This mediator [Jesus Christ], first through the Prophets, then by his own lips, afterwards through the Apostles, revealed whatever he considered necessary. He also inspired Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of SUPREME AUTHORITY and to which we give credence concerning all those truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn.” City of God, book XI, Chapter 3
“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life …”
Source: St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book II, Chap. 9, online at the University of Pennsylvania.
Furthermore, how has RCC tradition trampled the Bible?
APostle PAUL; From the Catholic Living Bible:
2 Tim 3:15 You know how, when you were a small child, you were taught the holy Scriptures; and it is these that make you wise to accept God’s salvation by trusting in Jesus Christ.
So according to Paul’s second letter to Timothy, scripture is sufficient to make you wise unto salvation. This directly contradicts Catholic claims that Scripture is insufficient, and dogma defined in Tradition is also essential to salvation.
A Roman Catholic Cardinal Denies Bible Sufficiency To Salvation:
“We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.” The Faith Of Our Fathers, (The Church and the Bible), by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 111th printing, copyright 1980 by TAN books and Publishers, Inc., ISBN: 0-89555-158-6, page 73
No wonder you reject the Bible!!!
JESUS on the SOLA SCRIPTURA:
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
But of course, what Jesus said in the Scriptures does not really apply to the Scriptures because there’s nothing in the Scriptures saying that it should apply!!!??? What kind of twisted, crazy logic is this that many is this forum love to quote??
Sorry about the double post.
(??)
Augustine [A PROTESTANT??], 1100 years before Luther
What!!!!! Augustine is a Catholic Bishop, Saint, and Doctor of the Church. I’m glad you think so highly of him. Please go and read all of his works, not just the parts people like to pick out and use for their own agendas.
Funny that Augustine was a Catholic, eh? How do you figure that, Andre?
Catholics have ALWAYS believed that the scriptures are of supreme authority and can’t be countermanded… which is why Church teaching is always in harmony with scripture. The Church wrote the scriptures! That does not give the Pope or anyone else POWER over the scriptures. The scriptures came about by the SAME authority that established the Church – the revelation of Christ! OF COURSE the Church has no authority to change or contradict the scriptures… and never has.
The Bible was written by the Church, compiled by the Church and proclaimed by the Church to be the Word of God. How could the Church undermine the authority of scripture without undermining her own God-given authority? You do not make sense.
Like it or not, the Bible you read (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is a Catholic invention… except for the books that Luther cut out.
St. Augustine was a PROTESTANT????
LOL!!!!
Hmmm… I read De Civitated Dei as well as The Confessions, not to mention, his sermons in the Breviary, but NEVER did I ever hear Augustine preach anything remotely Protestant!!!
LOL!!!
Have you even REALLY read ANY of his works????
You mean, the same Saint Augustine who said:
ego uero euangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae conmoueret auctoritas????
PLEASE STOP EMBARASSING YOURSELF ANDRE BY FURTHER DEMONSTRATING YOUR IGNORANCE!!!
ROFL!!!
Regarding paul’s letter to Timothy: Andre, if pauls exhortation to Timothy teaches sola scriptura, it would be confined strictly to the ‘holy scriptures’ of the old testament canon, since that is all Timothy would have been raised on.
Have to give that great point to Cardinal Newman.
Wasn’t it also Augustine who said Roma locuta, causa finita est?
And lots of stuff about, you know, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the Blessed Virgin, and lots of other Romish abominations not CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY(tm) taught in The Bible (you know, that collection of books discerned and canonized by the Catholic Church).
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Andre,
Since you’ve implied we’re nothing but idiots here, please help me out here.
What ‘Scripture‘ was being referred to here in this biblical passage???
You people are so ignorant you don’t understand the cynicism in my words PROTESTANT?? with questions marks because he was a 5th ‘Catholic’ with very PROTESTANT views of the Bible.
Luther was a Catholic very versed in the writing of the Fathers when he discovered the principle of Sola Scriptura!!
Esau, you speaking and a dog barking are the same at this point so don’t waste your time with me…
Esau, you speaking and a dog barking are the same at this point so don’t waste your time with me…
It must be TERRIBLY DIFFICULT to actually confront an opponent whose arguments you are UNABLE to REFUTE!
Poor, poor horatio!
(yawn….)
“Luther was a Catholic very versed in the writing of the Fathers when he discovered the principle of Sola Scriptura!!”
He didn’t discover it… he invented it.
If St. Augustine had very Protestant views of the Bible, why did the Catholic Church make him a Doctor of the Church? The title of Doctor of the Church is an official honor that is bestowed by the Pope in recognition of the outstanding contribution a person has made to the understanding and development of Christian doctrine. Only 32 others have been named Doctors of the Church, it is not a lightly used title.
But I think we see how it works by now. Pope Andre says St. Augustine was Protestant. Pope Andre says Catholics worship Mary. Pope Andre says Catholics reject the Bible. If anyone preaches against Pope Andre, let him be anathema.
“You people are so ignorant you don’t understand the cynicism in my words PROTESTANT?? with questions marks because he was a 5th ‘Catholic’ with very PROTESTANT views of the Bible.”
So you’re saying you have clear and unequivocal proof that St Augustine didn’t regard 1 and 2 Maccabees and the other 5 books Luther excised from the canon as inspired Scripture? Because based on the quotes that you provided, St Augustine would have included those 7 OT books in his description, and not exclude them as Luther did. So how do you explain the contradiction?
Ok, wait a minute, Andre. Let me get this straight. You belong to an “Apostolic church” which you claim put the Bible together. You claim to believe the exact same things as the first century Christians. Have I got that part right?
So how did these first century Christians practice sola scriptura when the Bible hadn’t even been assembled yet?
I’m more convinced than ever having had this discussion how blinded by tradition Catholics really are. No matter how many times I quote your own heresies you come and play them down, provide links that prove the heresies themselves or try to prove tradition is above the Scriptures.
If there’s so much doubt in you in the Scriptures, if your bishops like the one I mentioned say the word of God canonized is not really the sufficient for finding salvation, just rewrite them! Oh wait, you have already done that in the Catechism…
No matter how much you reel and rock, you have not been able to prove using the Bible only that MARY is in heaven, that she is a SAVIOR with Christ according to Ratzinger, that the Pope is God on Earth and that to be saved you must be part of the RCC and obey the Pope. Prove them to me using the Bible and I will convert to Catholicism! Of course you can’t, except quote your own church fathers and corrupt Popes. Way to go… You only quote the Bible to call people effeminate..
I was hoping to find honesty and sincerity in some of you but there’s none. There’s hatred, there’s insults, there’s a lot of name calling and the same spirit that dominated the assassins of the Holy Inquisition. Some of you would kill for the RCC I feel, Esau is one…
Don’t get me wrong, the RCC will continue to thrive, because the Antichrist will act until the end of days, so you will have your little comfort zone for a long time. You will one day become a world power and the fires of the Inquisition will one day rise again because that’s the spirit in the Vatican still today. God will put an end to your reign of terror when Christ comes. Just sit, blog and wait.
“Thank you Luther for standing up to the corrupt pedophiles of the Middle Ages and opening the way for the truth to shine! It shines brightly, many can see it and are leaving Babylon and the Whore.”
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:8-9
“And I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities'” (Revelation 18:4,5).
Some of you would kill for the RCC I feel, Esau is one…
How many albino monk assasins should I send from the Whore of Babylon to take care of this whelp?
Shhhhh, Esau. They’re on the way.
There’s hatred, there’s insults, there’s a lot of name calling
Funny — you don’t consider your own posts from the very beginning as NOT actually demonstrating a wild and prejudicial hatred against the Catholic Chuch (as is evidenced by your continued behaviour here where you didn’t even examine and seriously consider what the Church actually teaches, but instead continue with your distorted views); not to mention, all the name calling and insults you’ve hurled right from your first comment?
But they are not from the Roman Catholic Church…They’re from several of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. This will confuse him until it’s too late!
I notice Andre has no defense – biblical or otherwise – for HIS beliefs. He just plays the same notes again, as if no one had refuted him. He demands evidence from Catholics (and then ignores it), but can’t defend his own views.
Adventists really hold a great number of beliefs in common with Catholics… its too bad they can’t recognize the fact that they owe almost all those beliefs to the Catholic Church. Talk about blind.
Yeah, Tim, I was struck by the irony, too.
If there’s so much doubt in you in the Scriptures…
We have no doubt in the scriptures. We have plenty of doubt in your interpretation of the scriptures. We have no doubt in Catholic Doctrine, just plenty of doubt in your interpretation of that doctrine.
No matter how much you reel and rock, you have not been able to prove using the Bible only that MARY is in heaven
Wait, you don’t believe in saints? Where are all the faithful who have died?
that she is a SAVIOR with Christ according to Ratzinger, that the Pope is God on Earth and that to be saved you must be part of the RCC and obey the Pope. Prove them to me using the Bible and I will convert to Catholicism!
How many times do we have to tell you that we don’t believe these (except the part about the necessity of obeying the Pope, which I think is an incredible double standard that you’re holding us to because you’ve condemned us for not obeying you). No one here will prove to you that Mary is our Savior with Christ or that the Pope is God on Earth. If you ever believe these things you will not be Catholic.
I was hoping to find honesty and sincerity in some of you but there’s none. There’s hatred, there’s insults, there’s a lot of name calling…
We’ve done nothing but give you honest answers about what Catholics believe, but you refuse to listen. Many people find it easy to disagree with us while still engaging in dialogue.
Don’t get me wrong, the RCC will continue to thrive, because the Antichrist will act until the end of days, so you will have your little comfort zone for a long time. You will one day become a world power and the fires of the Inquisition will one day rise again because that’s the spirit in the Vatican still today. God will put an end to your reign of terror when Christ comes. Just sit, blog and wait.
Thanks for the prophecy. If it doesn’t come true would that make you a false prophet?
“Thank you Luther for standing up to the corrupt pedophiles of the Middle Ages and opening the way for the truth to shine! It shines brightly, many can see it and are leaving Babylon and the Whore.”
Speaking of hatred, insults, and name calling…
Mission accomplished, then. Yours, that is. That’s exactly what you came looking for, and you found exactly what you wanted. Congratulations.
The Basic Methods of the Mindless Anti-Catholic Andre
1. Take quotes from various Anti-Catholic sources that distort what the Catholic Church teaches and present them as a veritable list of (un-)truths accusing the Catholic Church
2. Avoid learning what the Catholic Church actually teaches but insist on the distorted Anti-Catholic version as being the truth and continue accusing the Catholic Church
3. If others should provide material evidence that disproves your points and/or submit arguments to you that effectively refutes them, return to #2
You nailed it, Esau.
Don’t get me wrong, the RCC will continue to thrive
Of course, the Roman Catholic Church will continue to thrive!
DO YOU KNOW WHY????
It was Christ who said so!
Mt 16:18:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against it. (DRV)
http://catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com/
Anon,
Learn GREEK & THEOLOGY!
The post you have on your website is lacking an understanding of these.
Peter was surely right when he said:
2Pt 3:16:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
Dude, your favorite movie, The Passion of the Christ, is a Catholic account of the Passion which also shows Mary’s role from a very Catholic perspective. If that’s your favorite movie, you’re more Catholic than you think.
Brian,
I think Anon is also Andre.
I would venture to say that he was also the same Anon on the other thread as well.
Look at the ‘About Me’ page, I found the following website:
“Low Price on Genesis Today Products”
This is the same website that Andre keeps advertising on his namelink.
I’m still suspicious of him.
It seems one of my hunches might be right about him — that the guy is probably ‘SPAM’ disguised as an ‘ANTI-CATHOLIC’.
Would Andre think it terribly un-neighborly of me to drop in on a popular SDA blog and start telling them all how they’ve been deceived by Satan, how they hypocritically twist the scriptures and how they are all going to hell?
SDA revealed;
http://www.geocities.com/junmescallado/sda.html
Tim J.,
I followed up his links.
It appears he’s attacking Catholic blogs because of his being demolished by some South African Catholic apologist.
Oh, by the way, if you do manage to happen on Andre’s other website (I don’t want to give him free publicity and, therefore, do not want to post a link to it), there’s a list where Andre asks that same Catholic Apologist to defend several points of Catholicism (all distortions, of course, of Catholicism; e.g., Andre states: “Matriology: the belief by Catholic that Mary is a Savior, just like Christ” — HILARIOUS!!!) but, not to mention, at each of these points, he specifically and repeatedly asks ‘Church fathers not allowed please’.
Cracks me up!
Catholics don’t believe anything was lacking in Christ’s passion.
Actually, in face of the Bible’s clear teaching on the matter, we do.
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,”
This is perhaps the most cryptic passage in the Bible. Christ’s sacrifice was perfect, and how can what is perfect be lacking in anything? But we, like Mary, must offer up our suffering to be part of His suffering, as we are part of His body.
Mary is our co-Redemptrix because she suffered in her heart whatever was lacking in the passion of Christ.
Mary especially, because of her prophesied part:
“Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, ‘Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted, and you yourself a sword will pierce, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.'”
Brian Walden says…
“I’m not an expert on the Church Fathers but I’m sure those who are can provide evidence to support the Immaculate Conception (though I doubt first century evidence). What first century historical evidence do you have against the Immaculate Conception? Furthermore, when has the Catholic Church ever taught against the Immaculate Conception?”
It is impossible to prove a negative Brian !!!!— however maybe now you know that you cannot back your statement.
This however may not be your fault— you were probably repeating something you heard in a discussion that evidently went un-challenged!.
SDG says-
“Wasn’t it also Augustine who said Roma locuta, causa finita est?”—-
Care to back that up?—-
Find me this exact quote on Sermon 131…!
I’ll be waiting.
” …and you yourself a sword will pierce, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.’ ”
How true that is! How the thoughts of many are revealed in their response to Christ’s Blessed Mother.
Wonder what Jesus thinks about all the insults directed at His Mother?
Roman Catholicism Is It A Cult?* http://catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com/
ANDRE, WHO HAS ALSO BEEN POSTING ANONYMOUSLY, IS HEREBY BANNED FROM THE BLOG.
What a great insight into the meaning of that passage, Tim. At first it sounds like two rather unrelated ideas, the suffering of a mother over her Son’s wrongful execution and the “thoughts of many hearts” being revealed, but as you say, “How the thoughts of many are revealed in their response to Christ’s Blessed Mother.” I’ve discussed the “Mary issue” with virulent anti-Catholics and it really can reveal something in them that one may not want to see. Often, they’ll say the most amazingly awful things about her, things they wouldn’t say about any other New Testament (or Old Testament) saint.
Erick, what first century historical evidence have you got that can in any way, however sleight, weigh in on the Immaculate Conception? I’ll put myself at the mercy of the evidence you provide.
Sorry for having engaged the troll, Jimmy. I just can’t seem to leave that kind of nonsense unanswered.
I’m sure (I hope?) not all Seventh Day Adventists are as unpleasant as Andre.
Brian—
Unfortunately for you–, I would never make a statement such as yours regarding my position!.
You said in essence that Rome has ALWAYS taught THE SAME since the time of Jesus— and I challenged it.
That’s all. No evil intent.
The evidence for what you said is ( in regards to the 1st century) left wanting.
Erick, As far as I know there is an incredibly small amount of first century historical evidence of any kind relating to Christian doctrine. I don’t have any. So go nuts. Tear me apart. I’m Catholic, I believe that the Church has always taught the same thing.
We went over this and over this “first century evidence” thing, ad nauseum. Erick asks for first century evidence that he knows doesn’t exist to cover for his own complete lack of evidence of any kind.
Again: ALL the earliest evidence indicates that belief in the Immaculate Conception was constant since the time of the Apostles. There is not a shred of evidence that it was NOT widely held and plenty to suggest that it was, though there is no WRITTEN first century patristic source I am aware of. There is lots of early (though not 1st century) evidence for it, and not a peep of objection or argument.
It was not in the least controversial. Wouldn’t one expect at least some objection to such a doctrine being invented and introduced so late? There is no controversy because the belief was there all along. In this instance, the argument from silence can carry some rhetorical weight.
The fact that no first century written source can be found for it is irrelevant (except to erick). The earliest documents addressing it treat it as a well established tradition.
We do not have to jump through anyone’s outlandish evidentiary hoops. I could just as easily demand written 1st century patristic evidence for salvation through the Sinner’s Prayer…
Brian Walden-
I disagree with your first premise. There is an enormous amount of Patristic sources in regards to many doctrines of Christianity in the 1st century.
Read J.N.D.Kelly “Early Christian Doctrines” for example.
On the “tear me apart”– I would’nt, there is enough of that going around already, unfortunately.
On the last part….”I believe that the Church has always taught the same thing”–I’ll just ask ” What’s the evidence?”.
Simply believing something because you are Catholic, makes no sense…And I am not being dis-respectful but Aristotle’s adage does come to mind when he said “…The un-examined life is not worth living”– to which I would say , the un-examined faith is not worth believing either.
erick –
It is you who are trying to prove a negative with no evidence. You say “since there is no first century evidence of x, that proves that x was invented later”. It doesn’t follow, at all. All it proves is that we don’t have any surviving written evidence of it from the first century, which you knew before you asked.
If you are trying to show that the Church has changed its teaching on the Immaculate Conception, then the burden of proof is yours. You have provided no evidence at all.
I also don’t have any evidence from the first YEAR of the Church to support the Virgin Birth, as no written evidence survives from that particular year. Does that make the Virgin Birth not a doctrine of the early Church? After all, there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT from the very first year of the Church… it must have been invented later.
Same logic… same erroneous result.
What you are asserting is that a doctrine can’t exist before the earliest written evidence of it, which just doesn’t wash.
Tim J says:
“We do not have to jump through anyone’s outlandish evidentiary hoops. I could just as easily demand written 1st century patristic evidence for salvation through the Sinner’s Prayer…”
Ready for the evidence from 1st century?
Romans 10:9-10.
Romans- written between 57-60 a.d.( even liberal scholars concur with these dates).
Now, which book of the New Testament (which Rome decided was a part of the Cannon) contains the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception?.
Papal Infallibility?.
Bodily Assumption of Mary?.
Argument from silence will not work here Tim J— if these were “peripheral” doctrines we would not even be having this lively discussion—however Tim J,these are doctrines that MUST BE BELIEVED to be a Roman Catholic.
These are essential pathways into all truth!!!- yet 1st century documents (including N.T) are silent on the matter.
Erick, what first century historical evidence have you got that can in any way, however sleight, weigh in on the Immaculate Conception? I’ll put myself at the mercy of the evidence you provide.
Gospel of Luke.
Gabriel addresses Mary as “full of grace.” This is not the same phrase as is translated “full of grace” elsewhere; it means, more or less, the one who has the perfection of grace. And we all know what grace does; it washes us and makes us clean of sin. To have the perfection of grace would make us perfectly free of sin.
A useful mediation, for humility — in that we, too, probably have some sins from which we have been saved by grace before we committed them.
Papal Infallibility?.
Matthew
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
If the Church teaches falsehood, the gates of hell have prevailed.
erick, that verse (in Romans 10) has nothing to do with salvation through the “Sinners Prayer” or “asking Jesus into your heart”.
It talks about believing and confessing, not salvation through praying a certain kind of prayer.
John Henry Newman answered this long ago:
Mary says-
“And we all know what grace does; it washes us and makes us clean of sin. To have the perfection of grace would make us perfectly free of sin.”
Last time I looked ,it is the Sacrifice of Jesus that washes us from sin—- not grace!.
Interesting eisegesis though!.
As far as Matthew goes- that’s Rome’s private interpretation.
SDG-
I could care less what John Henry Newman says or thinks.
His quote only works when applied to all-but Rome!.
How convenient!.
I’m still waiting for Augustine’s “Roma locuta est-causa finita est” which is always ascribed to him as a “quote”.
Speaking of Newman, there is an utterly fantastic little book on “Mary, the New Eve” which is a compilation of his writings on topics such as the Immaculate Conception, why Mary needed a savior even though she was conceived without sin, etc. I can’t say enough about how good this is: it clearly and concisely brings together everything from Scripture, the Fathers, and the development of doctrine. The latter is something the late unlamented Andre would never understand, nor would any protestants who repeatedly demand that something be proof-texted from Scripture. Newman understood that the things can be inferred – as was the doctrine of the Trinity – though it is not explicit in Scripture. Yet once a doctrine like the Trinity was stated, it lit everything up, made everything understandable. After reading this short book, you will feel exactly the same about all the Marian doctrines – why they had to be the case, logically. I bought lots of these books to give away – they are only $4 (I have no relatoin at all to TAN books – I just love this book). See http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/27/keywords/newman/
Seriously: buy this. You will be glad you did!
Erick posted after I did: I could care less what John Henry Newman says or thinks.
How very, very sad. Newman was one of the clearest and best Christian thinkers of the past 2,000 years. He puts Luther and Calvin to shame.
That is not an answer. I said Newman answered your objection. Newman expressed what countless converts from Protestantism, myself included, have discovered. What matters is not who said it, but the resonance of the truth it expresses for those of us who have struggled through these issues. (Of course Newman saying it in his inimitable style doesn’t hurt!)
So, I couldn’t care less what you care or don’t care about. You lodged an argument, of a sort. I responded, with what is now a very old response. You have been answered. Feel free to try to counter if you want, but “I could care less” isn’t an answer.
“I’m still waiting for Augustine’s “Roma locuta est-causa finita est” which is always ascribed to him as a “quote”. ”
No, not always as a quote, not that it matters a whit. It is an accurate paraphrase.
We have – as you know erick – covered this in great detail before, as well. “Rome has spoken, the dispute is finished” is a paraphrase of Augustine’s complete thought;
“For two councils [Carthage and Milevis] have now sent reports to the Apostolic See; replies have come in turn. The dispute is finished. Would that the error might be finished sometime as well.”
Can we agree that THE Apostolic See is “ROME”, to which – for some reason – the two councils felt compelled to send reports? After Rome replies (or “speaks”), Augustine declares – verbatim – “The dispute is finished”.
Augustine and the councils to which he refers were indisputably subject to the Apostolic See, which this passge supports in spades.
Are you really going to make a federal case because
“Rome has spoken”
is not a verbatim quote of
“…replies have come (from the Apostolic See)”
The meaning is the same. “Rome spoke” and “The Apostolic See replied” describe exactly the same event, only one is a paraphrase. Don’t tell me that paraphrasing is some wierd Catholic concept?
Once again, the “direct quote” thing is a red herring meant to obfuscate the fact that this passage from Augustine clearly gives direct evidence for the acknowledged authority of the Bishop of Rome.
There is just no “gotcha” here. Sorry.
Tim J—
It is not a matter of “gotcha” but a matter of truth. That’s all.
As always—it is a pleasure…I missed Esau this time.
You guys keep me on my toes, for this I thank you.
God bless.
And I thank you for your civil – if very frank – exchanges.
God bless you, too.
erick,
I’m still waiting for Augustine’s “Roma locuta est-causa finita est” which is always ascribed to him as a “quote”.
Tim J. already beat me to the point.
“Roma locuta est-causa finita est” is the common way of expressing St. Augustine’s principle about the papacy. As Pope Pius XI stated:
When Augustine, accordingly, had learned of the Roman Pontiffs condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius, he uttered the following memorable words in a sermon to the people: “The views of two councils touching this controversy have been transmitted to the Apostolic See, and the answer has been sent back. The case has been settled. God grant that the error be ended likewise.”[31] These words of his, condensed a trifle, have passed into a proverb: “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” Again in another occasion, after citing the decision of Pope Zosimus put under the ban of his condemnation all Pelagians in all parts of the world, the saint wrote: “The Catholic doctrine is so ancient and well-grounded, so certain and clear in these words of the Apostolic See, that it would be criminal in a Christian to doubt of this truth. AD SALUTEM (On St. Augustine) 17
At least you are not still claiming that Karl Keating made up the quotation.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
On the last part….”I believe that the Church has always taught the same thing”–I’ll just ask ” What’s the evidence?”.
Simply believing something because you are Catholic, makes no sense…And I am not being dis-respectful but Aristotle’s adage does come to mind when he said “…The un-examined life is not worth living”– to which I would say , the un-examined faith is not worth believing either.
Erick, the very reason I’m Catholic is because I examined my life and Catholic doctrine. I haven’t yet gotten into the Church Fathers extensively, and while you’re absolutely correct that I should become familiar with them I also don’t have the time to examine everything the Catholic Church has ever taught. I’ve done enough research to have faith and I’m just about finished reading the Catechism cover to cover. I hold everything I learn up to the Church’s claim that it is the one true Church founded by Christ. I haven’t yet found anything, such as the changing of doctrine, that contradicts this claim. If you have some evidence that will convince me otherwise, I’d love to hear it – and so would my wife (she’s Presbyterian).
Simply believing something because you are Catholic, makes no sense…And I am not being dis-respectful but Aristotle’s adage does come to mind when he said “…The un-examined life is not worth living”– to which I would say , the un-examined faith is not worth believing either.
erick,
Have you ever even examined your faith?
Does it even bother you the fact that your faith is quite different than those of the early Christians?
Among many of the prominent beliefs of the early Christians that are strikingly Catholic, they believed in Petrine Authority. The early Christians believed in the Real Presence.
As mentioned, there are as many as 63 Fathers and eminent ecclesiastical writers from the 1st and 6th centuries, all of whom proclaim the Real Presence.
St Ignatius in the 1st century was a disciple of St. Peter himself and when he addressed the Gnostics, he even said:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
St. Justin Martyr wrote an Apology to the Emperor Anotoninus in the 2nd century:
“We do not receive these things as common bread and drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the word of God, even so we have been taught that the Eucharist is both the flesh and the blood of the same incarnate Jesus.”
Origen in the 3rd century wrote:
“If thou wilt go up with Christ to celebrate the Passover, He will give to thee that bread of Benediction, His own body, and will vouchsafe to thee His own blood.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century instructed the Catechumens:
“He Himself having declared, ‘This is My Body’, who shall dare to doubt henceforward? And He having said, ‘This is My Blood’, who shall ever doubt, saying: This is not His blood? He once at Cana turned water into wine, which is akin to blood; and is He underserving of belief when He turned wine into blood?”
St. John Chrysostom preached on the Eucharist:
“If thou wert indeed incorporeal, He would have delivered to thee those same incorporeal gifts without covering. But since the soul is united to the body, He delivers to thee in things perceptible to the senses the things to be apprehended by the understanding. How many nowadays say: ‘Would that they could look upon His (Jesus’) form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes. Lo! Thou Seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him.'”
St. Augustine in the 5th century addressed the newly-baptized, saying:
“I promised you a discourse wherein I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which sacrament you even now behold, and of which you were last night partakers. You ought to know wat you have recieved. The bread which you see on the altar, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
And, of course, Saint Paul said, “The Cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? …
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: ‘Take and Eat: This is My Body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of Me’. In like manner also the cup, after the Supper, saying: ‘This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood. This do ye, as often ye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as often ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until He come. Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:23-29)
Why is it, erick, that you don’t believe in the very same things the Apostles and those who came after them believed but, instead, accept whole-heartedly an innovation that came 1500 years afterwards?
My twins were having their First Holy Communion so I wanted to have some extra special Communion invitations to send to my family and friends, but I didn’t have time to search all over town. Luckily, I found four excellent sites while searching the Internet, http://www.announcements-shoppe.com/First_Holy_Communion_Invitations_Cards/productsList-22-1.htm, http://www.cardspersonalized.com, http://www.express-invitations.com and http://www.cardsshoppe.com.
Although it was a difficult choice, I ordered from http://www.express-invitations.com/religious_invitations_announcements_cards/Religious-Invitations-Announcements-Cards.php and could not have been more pleased. The personalized twins Communion invitations are simply fabulous!! Everyone just loved them, and I will certainly order from them again in the future.
Hi Jimmy, I think I have been here before. But it always better the second time. I have been on the net since early 2007 doing PR work for God. I have been to a few hundred sites so far. The Atheists sites list all of the evil things that Christains have done in the name of God. They blame God for all of it. So, God needs a Public Relations Representative to give him a better image. If God needs to throw Jerry Falwell, or the Catholic Church under the bus to better his image, well that’s what he needs to do. God asked me to work in his PR Department back in 2006. In response I have been telling everyone about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. This is what God told me:
In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my Life. In the evening I die, death.
To understand this know that Birth is Last and Last is Birth. Yes, this is a big issue with the big guy. Mel Steffor
But it always better the second time.
Sheesh. How bad was it the first time, I wonder.
It’s wonderful to have Dr Beckwith back to the One True Church. May our Lord Jesus Christ continue to guide others back to the Church He built upon Kepha.
Shalom.
The second coming of God is at hand”. Take heed and make note, God has returned.
Jesus told us not to listen to people like you. But we’ve told you that before, and it’s made no difference to you.
Mel, if you were really God’s PR man, would you come onto a Catholic blog and try to convert us to…your…whatever…by telling us that God needs to throw the Catholic Church under the bus?
Is sola scriptura in the New Testament?
Is the canon of the New Testament in the New Teatament?
True or False: did the consensus of the bishops of the
second through the fourth centuries determine what books are considered inspired and cononical? Could they have been mistaken? Is the doctrine of inspiration of the books in the New Testament in the New Testament? Conclusion: Sacred Tradition must play
a part in all of the above.