A reader writes:
I grew up in a non-Christian religious household, eventually left to become an atheist, and since, because of reading philosophy, have become convinced that God exists. Since one of the key philosophers I have been looking at is Catholic, I started considering the Roman Church. Forgive me, for "Catholic" means both "Universal" and "Whole". To accept the Roman Church as "whole" would, in my mind, be the same as agreeing that the Roman Church finds its author in Christ. This may very-well be true, and that is what I hope to explore.
But until I grow in this, either to the point where I become united to the Pope in belief, or where I abandon the idea altogether, I cannot in good conscience use the term "Catholic" to describe those united to the Pope. I need more time before I can do this.
I wanted to first say that I understand why you created the rule. People have become unreasonable and insulting. I do not use the above term "Roman Church" as an insult, but rather as the only name I feel comfortable with (I would like to know another, more respectful name). I also wanted to thank you for your deep understanding and Christian charity you show me (maybe it is hypocritical that I refer to followers of Jesus as though they have been given Chrism marking them as Priest, Prophet and King/Queen, but that is another issue I have not yet worked out very well).
There are many questions I have. The forums have scared me away, for the most part. I am talking with a Monsignor, but at the same time, I want to find good resources, so that I might learn more about the Church.
I want to begin by saying that I appreciate the reader’s simultaneous openness and conscientiousness. I understand fully the dilemma he finds himself in, and I have been in similar dilemmas before. In fact, so have a lot of religious people. Given the names that religious groups give themselves, people of conscience often find themselves scrupling–at least a little bit–about how to refer to them.
The situation is understandable from both the perspective of those who give themselves such names and the perspective of those who are reluctant to use the names. Religious groups often name themselves after one of their beliefs, so if Group A believes it is the one true faith then it may choose to call itself The One True Faith to advertise this fact. That’s understandable. That’s what they believe about themselves. On the other hand, those who are members of Group B are not going to want to call somebody else The One True Faith.
So this is just the kind of situation that humans are going to get in, given the present (pre-eschaton) condition of mankind.
I don’t imagine that that many blog readers are currently starting their own religions, so I won’t offer advice here about how to name them, but a great many readers are likely to wonder how to handle the situation when they encounter people with theologically objectionable names, so I’ll offer some thoughts on that.
1. When you’re using language to communicate directly (as oppose to something else with language, like telling a story or insulting a person–both of which communicate things only indirectly) the #1 goal is intelligibility. If you aren’t intelligible to your audience then you’ve failed to communicate.
2. Ideally, you want all parts of your communication to be equally intelligible, but sometimes this isn’t possible. Sometimes, for example, you may have to use an ambiguous phrase to communicate yourself (for example, because you can’t think of an unambiguous one in time or because using a totally unambiguous one would be horrendously clunky). In these situations, the thing to do is strive for the core of the message to be clear, and you just have to live with the fact that part of the message is ambiguous.
3. A secondary goal in direct communication is communicating in a smooth manner. This means delivering your message in a way that is euphonious and acceptable to the audience. In other words, you don’t cause them to get distracted from your message by the way you deliver it. Distractions can include things like clunky delivery, so much excess verbiage that the message gets lost, or insults to your audience that will get them focused on the fact they are being insulted rather than thinking about what your main point is.
4. Direct communication occurs in the context of language communities. These language communities are based not only on the overall language that the community speaks (English, Spanish, Russian) but also the dialect of the speakers (American English, British English), the subculture(s) to which they belong, incuding not only regional factors but also how old they are, whether they are urban or rural, and what beliefs they have (are they politically liberal or conservative, are they religiously this or that, are they supporters or opponents of a particular technology).
5. Each act of direct communication, to the extent possible, should be crafted to be as intelligible and as smooth as possible for the language community that you are talking to (however broadly or narrowly that is defined).
Now let’s apply these principles to the case of religious groups with theologically problematic names, and I’ll start out by naming two groups whose names I have theological objections to: the Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I object to the former because I do not believe that they are, in fact, witnesses for Jehovah. I think their understanding of God is profoundly flawed in countless ways and that their organization has not been commissioned by God to provide for his witness.
I object to the latter because I do not believe it to be a church in the proper sense of the term (that is, it does not have validly ordained bishops) and because I do not believe it was authorized by Jesus Christ and because I reject the theological underpinnings of the idea of there being "Latter-day Saints" in the sense intended by this Church (i.e., that the early church apostatized and so had to be re-founded by Joseph Smith in the "latter-days"). I also don’t like it because it’s clunky (with that double genitive construction–"of . . . of"), but that’s a stylistic rather than a theological objection.
What am I going to call these groups?
Well, per principle 5, it’ll depend on who I’m talking to. If I’m talking directly to a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon (for example, in an effort to show them the problematic aspects of their respective bodies’ teachings), I’ll want to make my communication as intelligible and smooth as possible for them. That means that I’ll probably start using some of their own in-house ways of phrasing things rather than imposing a Catholic idiom on everything (e.g., "One of the problems with your baptism is that it does not impart sanctifying grace"–that will mean nothing to either a Mormon or a JW).
As I talk with them, I’m going to hit places where the natural, smooth thing to their ears will be to refer to them using their preferred terms, which would be "Jehovah’s Witnesses" and "saints." I find both of these theologically objectionable, so what am I going to do?
I could, of course, take a confrontational approach and, whenever I hit one of the spots in the conversation where one of these terms is called for, I could sub in something deliberately calculated to offend, like "members of your awful, horrible false religion."
I might even rationalize this decision with myself by telling myself that it’s a kind of "tough love" tactic that confronts them with the reality of what their religion is.
While there is a place for tough-love statements, the great majority of the time I’m not in a situation where this kind of statement is going to be productive when talking to members of a particular religion.
Christian charity impels me to do what will be productive in whatever situation I am in, and so the great majority of the time I shouldn’t be talking to people of a particular faith with that kind of confrontational strategy. I want them to think about what I have to say and take it seriously, and most of the time that will mean not insulting them in the process of delivering the message.
This gives me a reason to work within their preferred terminology to the extent possible.
In the case of calling Mormons "saints," the answer is a flat-out no. I’m not going to call them that.
Why?
The obvious reason is that I don’t think that adhering to Mormonism makes you a saint, but that’s the reason I find the term objectionable. It’s not the reason I won’t use it.
Suppose, for example, that a new religion started that called itself "the Saints" and there were no other avaiable terms by which to refer to members of this group. Well, in that case I’d grit my teeth and refer to people of this group as Saints. The goals of direct communication are to be intelligible and smooth and if I use elaborate circumlocutions every time I want to refer to members of this group then I’ll have to fail at at least one of those goals.
This is the kind of situation I find myself in with groups like the Church of Christ (pick whichever group calling itself the Church of Christ that you want). I don’t believe that such groups are the Church of Christ (I believe that’s the Catholic Church), but there is no other intelligible and smooth way to refer to these groups, so I live with the only established term for them. (Note: Depending on the group in question, I could call them things like "Campbellites"–but this is likely to be offensive or even unintelligible to many of them).
Thus per point #2 (above), with a group like "the Saints," I’d make sure my core message is intelligible ("The Saints are not the true followers of Jesus") even if it means that part of how my message is phrase will be ambiguous (because I’m relying on the hearer to figure out that by referring to "the Saints" I am not, in fact, conceding that they are saints; I’m just using the term for the sake of intelligibility).
But that’s not the situation I’m in with Mormons.
There are other terms in common usage which, even though they are not the terms Mormons prefer, they are terms that Mormons will recognize and accept. The term "Mormon" is the obvious one, and it is my preferred term, so it’s the one I use except when special circumstances call for me to give the technical name of their church.
With Jehovah’s Witnesses matters are similar but different. Historically they’ve called themselves a number of different things (e.g., "Bible Students"), but in discussions with them I’ll have the same reasons to not encumber my message with confusing or insulting references if I want them to hear what I’m telling them.
Even if I’m not talking directly to them there can be reasons to use their preferred term. In this blog post, for example, I’ve been using it for the sake of clarity, though I could also use a substitute like "JWs."
In the end, what to call a group with a theologically objectionable name seems to me to depend on how five numbered points listed above play out. If there is an alternative terms that is clear and non-insulting (even if it is not the preferred term) then I’d try to use that with such a group.
On the other hand, if there is no such term then I’d go ahead and use the theologically problematic one and let the reader figure out (if it isn’t blindingly obvious to him) that I’m not really conceding that is group is what it names itself.
Given that I’m an apologist for the Catholic faith, he’s likely to figure that out rather quickly.
I therefore don’t need to encumber my message to him with needlessly clunky or offensive flourishes.
To come full circle back to the reader who wrote, I would say that you need not scruple about speaking of Catholics or the Catholic Church.
As long as people know you aren’t Catholic, it’s implied that you aren’t conceding to the Catholic Church the fact that it is the universal church.
The same refers to referring to Christians as Christians. They are people who claim to follow Christ, and you can refer to them as such without necessarily conceding that Jesus is the Christ.
In the (unlikely) even that anyone ever asks you why you use these terms, you can easily say, "Well, I’m not (yet) convinced that these terms are fully accurate, but I haven’t made a secret of the fact that I’m not yet a member of one of these groups, so you can infer that I’m not fully signing off on them. It’s better to just go ahead and use the terms for ease of communication so that we can get at the truth rather than encumbering the discussion by using terminology that constantly points out the obvious (I’m not a Catholic) and runs the risk of being offensive. We’re all smart enough here to know that if a non-Catholic or a non-Christian uses these words that he’s not fully endorisng them."
At least that would be the approach I would take if I was in the reader’s position. I respect those who would still feel bound to scruple on these terms, though.
BTW, I wish the reader well in his journey, and in case it helps I’d invite him to consider how the Catholic Church got its name and what implications this may have for its use of the name.
Great article. And to the original writer, I think the dilemma you described is indicatory of conscientiousness and the desire to be genuine. Insofar as it is, it’s very commendable. I am hoping that Jimmy’s well-thought-out reply puts your mind at ease so that you see the issue as nothing to scruple over, in your case. Excellent job, Jimmy. And all the best to the original writer in his journey!
I don’t like either term but I’d prefer people to use “Roman Catholic Church” rather than “Roman Church”, because the latter is inaccurate by anyone’s standards.
Roman Church refers only to the local Church of Rome which is part of the entire communion of the Catholic Church. The Greek Catholic Churches are not “part of the Roman Church” they are “in communion with the Roman Church (i.e. the local Church of Rome)”.
If you absolutely must, for the purpose of making distinctions, you can call the “entire communion of the Catholic Church” the “Roman Catholic Church” – but not the “Roman Church”.
I will pray for the original writer in his or her journey. For as long as I’ve heard of the Church Fathers, I’ve only recently actually read them. Very edifying to read letters from that time.
Thanks for a great, clear post, Jimmy. The ongoing difficulty that this very simple point seems to pose for some people is puzzling to me.
If we Catholics felt the same way about other groups’ names that a few non-Catholics seem to feel about our name, we could not use the names for the Episcopal Church or the Presbyterian Church, as well as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Then there’s the Church of Christ (and United Church of Christ), Christian Science, Charismatics and Pentecostals, the Children of God / Family of Love, Evangelical Free, and many others who in Catholic and/or other Christian belief either have no right at all to the words in their titles, or else have no exclusive or unique claim (just as some Protestants might concede that the Catholic Church is part of what they consider the “catholic church,” but not the whole thing, whereas other more anti-Catholic Protestants would entirely exclude the Catholic Church from “the catholic church”).
If such considerations prevented us from using the given names for such groups, we would be unable to communicate. For whatever bizarre reason, very few Christians seem to have any difficulty with any of these titles except one, the Catholic Church.
NO. Although widely misused to mean the entire communion of the Catholic Church, “Roman Catholic Church” DOES NOT refer to the entire Catholic communion, but ONLY to the Roman or Latin Catholic Church. See Jimmy’s new rule for more info.
P.S. Jimmy, thanks for giving the example of “saints” (in the case of the Mormons), which is objectionable to Catholics in a way that would prevent us from using that language — and for showing how “Catholic Church” is different from that and should not pose the same objections.
Then there are terms like “Society of Friends” which end up neutralizing such terms “Quaker” — which was an insult at first, but then, people aren’t going to murder “friend” for them.
Even if people didn’t want to refer to our Church as Catholic, couldn’t they say, “your Church”, “your religion”, “the Magisterium”, etc. as needed?
Resorting to pejoratives, even without considering intent, seems unnecessary.
In any sustained discussion such circumlocutions will very quickly exhaust themselves.
“Your church” only works in second person address (you couldn’t write an essay, a book or a blog post that way) and is too likely to become confrontational (it’s a very short step from criticizing “your church” to blaming “you” for belonging to such a group).
The James Whites of the world aren’t going to want to use “the Magisterium” (i.e., the teaching authority) in an unqualified way any more than “the Catholic Church.” They will want to say “the Roman magisterium,” etc., and we’re right back where we started.
The only workable solution is to be willing to grant to other groups the courtesy of their own name/title for themselves. This is the solution that nearly everybody uses for nearly everybody else, with almost the sole glaring exception being the Church Whose Name Anti-Catholics Dare Not Speak.
SDG. I understand, but for a purposes of writing an e-mail, or asking a direct question in a forum, “your Church” seems easy enough, unless of course the writer really wants to use a pejorative term instead.
Words are equivocal, and attempts to make them otherwise (e.g., by refusing some of their accepted meanings) is at best fruitless, at ‘middlest’ confusing, and at worst insulting.
Some of the best examples of this have already been given, but I’ll give a couple again for those who missed them the first time around.
As a Catholic (an equivocal term to be sure, but here I’m using it to mean one who belongs to the Catholic Church of which the Bishop of Rome is the head), I have no problem referring to eastern churches as “Orthodox” even though as a Catholic I have to believe that certain of their doctrines (dox) are not right (ortho). It’s a different meaning of the word; obviously related to its etymology, but not exactly the same as it.
“Orthodox” used in this way is a name, which is a vocal sound (or a written sign of a vocal sound), which signifies some thought or thing (in this case, a certain body of believers), and is certainly not the same as its etymology. “Catholic” can signify as explained above, or it can mean what its etymology means, which is “universal”. Both meanings can exist in a language without creating confusion, if one simply recognizes this fact. As Chesterton was fond of saying, if etymology and meaning were exactly the same, “chivalrous” would mean “horsey”.
As another example, I have no problem calling leaders in other churches (even Mormons) “bishops”. This doesn’t mean that I think that they have episcopal (bishopy) authority in my Church, but that’s what they call themselves, and I’m happy to oblige them. Calling them bishops is in no way a concession that they have apostolic succession or anything else. Rather, it’s a recognition that some words (most, in fact) have more than one meaning. Being clear about which meaning you’re using is part of being a clear thinker, speaker, and writer.
Denying that these words have multiple meanings, and refusing to use ones that don’t fit our understanding of things is a great way to misunderstand the nature of language and its significatory power.
I’m not bothered by the words “Romanist” or “Papist,” simply because I really am both of those, being loyal to Rome and the pope. I also understand why people like Steve Camp can’t bring themselves to use the word “Catholic,” as they spend a great deal of effort convincing people that we are precisely the opposite. We are to him as Mormons are to us. Which was an excellent example to use, BTW.
I live in a heavily Mormon area, and I find that most of them don’t object ot the word “Mormon,” but they much prefer to be called “LDS.” That seems reasonable, as at the least it’s a lot more specific than “saint” by itself. I DO refer to their community as a “church,” even though it’s not apostolically established, just out of courtesy. (A courtesy which they generally return, too.) The thing is, even though I don’t believe the Mormon Church has a valid apostolic succession, they DO believe it does. (Joseph Smith claimed to have been ordained by John the Baptist under the authority of the apostles Peter, James and John.) So in contrast to the Protestant churches, which neither claim nor acknnowledge apostolic succession, the Mormons at least believe there is such a thing, and that they have it, and therefore under that definition are a church in the same sense of the word that we believe we are.
Of course, I don’t have the same certainty that Steve Camp has of being able to tell who is and isn’t an actual saint based on their church membership. For all I know, God has made some provision for the LDS that I wot not of. Certainly I know a lot of them whose lives reflect Christ better than I ever have as either a Catholic or a Protestant. So unless I have a dead certainty that they cannot be saved, I won’t purposely avoid calling them “saints.”
I have no problem calling most faith communities by the names they set out for themselves but to that end, I am glad the Mormons never hit upon the idea calling themselves “The Christian Church of Joseph Smith” or some other permutation that involves the word “Christian”.
With as much confusion as there is these days after the Protestant Reformation, I think it is important that we not loose sight of the meaning of the word and jealously gaurd it from corruption. On this ground, I am afraid I will resort to complicated circumlocutions before conceding the word to a non-Christian group such as the JWs or Mormons.
As far as the word “catholic” is concerned, considering there are already very old and well-established Christian denominations which traditionally made the distinction between big C and little c, I do not believe referring to us as Catholics necessarily implies belief in our catholicity.
Sure there are anti-Catholic (I hate that word because it sounds too whiny) folks who refuse to use it, there are plenty of anti-Catholics who do call us “Catholic”. If one were to hold to this idea that use implies belief, then what about the likes of the AP, Reuters, the TV networks, the Masons, anti-church atheists, and Dan Brown?
I will refuse to refer to Teddy Kennedy as “Teddy” any more. The name “Teddy” means “Gift of God” and, as far as I am concerned, he is neither a gift nor is he from God. What do I call him?
However, I will refer to Barbara Streisand with her name since “Barbara” means “foreign or strange”.
I am also bothered by the use of the term “Native Americans” to refer to what I call American Indians. I was born in this country, so I am native as well.
My point in all this is that sometimes you have to use terminology to refer to people that you would rather not use.
The pejorative and therefore objectionable character of the words is a separate issue from their denotative accuracy or whether any individual Catholic is bothered by them. Terms like “darkie” and “dot-head” are “accurate” as far as they go, but they are pejorative terms.
I’m sorry, but this point has been answered so many times, and in particular has been clearly and repeatedly situated within the larger context of the general issue of group-names and conflicting claims to the language behind those names, that I am at a loss how anyone can still be content to restate the anti-Catholic difficulty solely with respect to the Catholic Church without making any effort to address the larger issue.
Until someone — anti-Catholic, Catholic, whatever — is willing to address the anti-Catholic unwillingness to use the term “Catholic” in the context of the larger issue of other group-names besides just the Catholic Church, I cannot see that there are any grounds for regarding the anti-Catholic position as anything other than bankrupt and indefensible.
Ha! Nice.
He’s still a child of God and loved by God. Don’t we, as Catholics, believe that all life is precious from conception to natural death, including the lives of senators who may not always act in line with their alleged faith? Perhaps, in the spirit of “Love thy neighbor,” you could call him Teddy with the thought that he is loved by Jesus, even if he doesn’t fully realize it himself.
JoAnna, Jeff was joking.
I am constant conversation with many differing people. I think something that we need to acknowledge, that hasn’t been addressed yet, is the fact that much of what has caused the friction is the anonymity of the internet. Most (but not all) involved would not have a problem speaking to others in a civil manner in-person. But, the problems with incivility are increased exponentially when we don’t have someone in front of us.
This is a big reason I gave up the internet bulletin board apologist “king of the hill” arguments years ago. I had basically just become the big bully-king of my little internet hill. I have learned a lot since then and certainly don’t accuse anyone here of the same mistakes I made, though I am sure many have had to learn the hard way – as I did.
So, a few things I will remind people of. Don’t argue to win. Argue for the sake of the soul of another. Argue for truth. But, if you ever lose your cool, it is probably a good indicator that something is wrong. I am sorry to get too preachy, but Jimmy is correct in trying to keep the pejoratives out of the dialogue. It is one thing to assume civility in-person and quite another on the internet.
Thanks to Jimmy for a well-balanced and reasoned approach to it all.
One more recommendation for those in combox-land, Mark Brumley’s “How Not to Share Your Faith”.
I see that Jeff beat me to the punch, but I will post anyway.
I have a friend named Paul. I call him Paul (most of the time, anyway, sometimes I call him Evil Ruler). Paul is six feet tall or a bit more and no beanpole, either. Should I refuse to call him by his name simply because it is derived from a word meaning “small”?
I am not addressing the original writer, who was very respectful and sounds as if he is not far from the Kingdom of God. I am simply trying to make a somewhat jocular point about those who get all up in arms over the issue of what we Catholics call ourselves.
Uh, Ted Kennedy’s nickname is for Edward (which does not mean gift of God), not Theodore (which does). It’s a dual-purpose nickname, like some others.
Is this reticence to call Catholics/Catholic Church by our proper name a new phenomenon? I realize that since Henry VIII’s revolt in the 16th century, the name “Roman Catholic” was born in an attempt to appropriate the name “Catholic” for the new church of which Henry became the “head.” There are Anglo-catholics, Old Catholics, and numerous others, but this reticence about which we have been writing on this board seems new to me.
I’m finding it strange, since when I was growing up (a generation ago), my Protestant friends, and most other Protestants I used to meet, would not have used “Catholic” to describe themselves for anything – saying that THEY were “Christians” and the word “Catholic” wasn’t in the Bible, etc. You all have heard that, I’m sure.
Recently, I think, Protestant apologists have begun reading the early Church Fathers more (there was a time when the Fathers’ writings were not considered to be authentic by many Protestants). Now, it seems, with the clear references to “Catholic Church” by so many of the Fathers, it’s an inescapable fact that the early Church referred to Herself, and was referred to as, Catholic.
Now, or so it seems to me, suddenly THEY want to be called “catholic” and insist that WE are not “catholic.”
Or, is there another reason why there is this reticence to even call us by our name? Can anyone enlighten me?
Ora et Labora,
Theresa
I realize that since Henry VIII’s revolt in the 16th century, the name “Roman Catholic” was born in an attempt to appropriate the name “Catholic” for the new church of which Henry became the “head.”
I always assumed it was because the name “Church of Horn*y Henry” was too long.
(Looks like the asterisk was necessary to keep it from being tagged as spam.)
Joanna,
who may not always act in line with their alleged faith
You say that as if Teddy’s only sin is drinking too much or cursing on occasion. Just say that he advocates the wholesale slaughter of many unborn children who are also loved by Jesus.
God Bless,
Matt
I will refuse to refer to Teddy Kennedy as “Teddy” any more. The name “Teddy” means “Gift of God” and, as far as I am concerned, he is neither a gift nor is he from God. What do I call him?
Call him “The Swimmer”.
Or “Splash”.
So what should I call my son Thomas, since he is not actually a twin?
Miss Manners says the proper thing to do is to call people what they want to be called, which is a really good general rule. Some names stick in the throat more than others, but I don’t mind actually speaking the word’s ‘Jahovah Witness’ when referring to them, because I have my fingers crossed behind my back, so to speak.
Theresa,
My guess is the James Whites of the world use names like “Romanist” or “Papist” to try to deprive Catholics of that which is properly hers: the 2,000 year legacy of the Church with the apostles, martyrs, Saints, Patristics, monks, mendicants, religious etc. Rather than face the 800 pound gorilla of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church they would rather erect a “straw-man” in the form of an arbitrary and capricious figurehead. For example, they will point to the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and her Queenship in Heaven as only having been formalized in 1950 but not address seriously the long pedigree of this belief in Scripture, the Fathers, and the 2000 year old liturgy and beliefs of the Church. Recently, I’ve noticed too, that some far-left Catholics will refer to the Church’s clear moral teaching as belonging only to “the Vatican”. Consciously or unconsciously, they are using disingenuous language to try to isolate the Magisterium or teaching office of the Church and her members.
Mark,
can you, please, show me from what biblical text you derive “the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and her Queenship in Heaven”.
Thanks
You know, my wife was merely pointing out that God loves Ted Kennedy, and you jump on her?
Whatever happened to “Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you”?
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. You’re right, of course. I said that I don’t like either term (Roman or RC). Both are wrong. I only meant that “Roman Catholic” is the lesser evil because at least it recognises the catholicity of the Church (even if it doesn’t do justice to the fact that there are different rites). The term also tends to have less of a negative, hostile connotation than “Roman Church”.
I meant that if they insist on using one of them (because they disagree that the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church) I’d prefer if people used “Roman Catholic” rather than “Roman” because, after it is explained to them, a charitable non-Catholic should be able to see that “Roman” is simply wrong and accept that it refers only to the local Church of Rome. That much at least is pretty incontrovertible.
It occurs to me that I have yet to meet a mainstream Catholic that refers to PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC (Episcopal Church) as “The (non-sacerdotal) Episcopally-governed Ecclesial Communion”… Despite some of the contra-Roman contradistinction that eminates from modern Orthodox theologians and scholars, we don’t call them heterodox or refuse to refer to them as “Orthodox”.
There is something to be said for calling people by what they wish to be called. My baptismal name is one that I am proud of – I share it with a pretty darned good saint AND my grandpa – and I use the full form of it – just like grandpa did.
When I introduce myself to people, the liberties and familiarity taken to shorten it to a familiar name strikes me as sometimes odd and insulting. (If someone introduces himself as Robert, don’t call him Bob until you know that is what he goes by. Jennifers are not “Jen” or “Jenny” until you get the ok!) People introduce themselves by a given moniker for a reason.
My mom calls me the familiar (let’s say “Bob”) – she is my mom, that is what she calls me. Two friends (affectionately) and an aunt (who is crazier than a box of frogs) get to call me the dimunutive (let’s say “Robby”) without raising my dander. They are my friends, they get a pass, and I enjoy that familiarity with them. Anyone else and I will not acknowledge you spoke to me.
If it makes some feel any better, I don’t believe the Episcopal Church is either a church or possessed of episcopos. That as the case may be, that is what they call themselves, that is what I will call them, and if you take a minute to get to know me, you will know where I stand.
Mark,
I think you are absolutely right – setting up a “straw man” allows James White’s et al to not have to deal with the plain facts of Church history.
Our differences really come down to this – what is authoritative? And, whose interpretation?
But I note again the interesting about face that I see with many non-Catholic apologists in that, for centuries, Protestants insisted that, since the word “Catholic” is not in the Bible, but “Christian” is, then they will only call themselves by that “Biblical” name. Now, many of them want to be called “catholic,” since they now accept the Fathers’ writings as authentic (not authoritative), and they try to ignore the fact that the “Catholic Church” referred to by Augustine and others is the same Catholic Church we have today.
This hijacking of our very name, and refusal to call the Church by Her rightful name (even for “theological” reasons) I think, is the logical conclusion to the subjective mentality that the Protestant Revolutionaries introduced into the reading of Scripture. “My interpretation is the correct one” and therefore, “if I don’t think YOUR church is the ‘Catholic Church’ about which the Fathers speak, then I’m not going to refer to it as such.”
Millions of little popes, deciding not only the “correct” interpretation of Scripture, but of History, too.
Stjepan,
Try Matthew 16:18-19.
Stjepan,
Can you, please, show me from what biblical text you derive “the dogma of sola scriptura that says I have to show you the biblical text from which I derive the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and her Queenship in Heaven.”
Thank you.
The Holy Roman Empire: neither holy, or roman, nor an empire. Discuss.
stjepan,
Thanks for reminding me. I meant to hyperlink Steve Ray’s recent article about the Biblical and historical background of the Assumption and Queenship of Mary:
http://www.catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/AssumptionAndQueen2.pdf
You’ll find more than a “proof text”; rather, a full treatment of the Biblical underpinnings of this Dogma.
On my blog (if I had one), if anyone used the terms “catholic” or “catholic church”, the blog owner would have no choice but to assume that the poster was referring to an entity that is inclusive to my local Lutheran Church. If the poster wants to be more specific, “Roman and Eastern catholic traditions” (or something similar) would be suggested.
There might even be a notice that the blog owner does not recognize any distinction between small and big “c” catholic. The blog owner reads the Nicene Creed as “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”.
I assume that the same hypothetical policy would apply to the construal of terms as “Orthodox Church” and “Orthodoxy” (both of which surely you believe characterize your church as much as any other), “Presbyterian” (surely your church has elders), “Church of Christ” and “United Church of Christ” (surely this includes you), “Jehovah’s Witnesses” (you witness to Jehovah, do you not?), “Latter-Day Saints” (as believers you are saints in these latter days), “Pentecostal” (the Holy Spirit resides in your church, does He not?) “Charismatic” (you do have spiritual gifts, yes?), the Children of God / Family of Love (goes without saying), Episcopal Church (your pastors are shepherds or overseers, are they not?), etc., etc., etc.
I’ll say it again: Comments that address this subject solely with respect to the difficulty of the non-Catholic referring to the Catholic Church, making no effort to address the larger issue of other group-names and the conflicting claims to the terms behind those group-names, have not contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way.
“Traditions” is a fine word, but is not going to do as an effective substitute for Church/Churches. “Roman and Eastern Catholic Communions” would almost work, but that’s going to get real clunky real fast. You’re going to want something snappier. “Catholic Church” works well.
I assume that the same hypothetical policy would apply to the construal of terms as…
Nah. I’ll let them have their capital letter versions (e.g. Penticostal). Lutherans aren’t a product of Penticostal tradition, et cetera. However, Lutherans tradition came out of historical catholicity. Remember, Luther never meant to break away, and as far as we are concerned we never did. Luther burned the papal bull as invalid.
Hey! Why don’t underlines work? The “P”s in Penticostal were supposed to be underlined for added emphasis.
Thank you for the logic, SDG, inconvenient as it may have been for some.
Don’t give away your birthright so easily! All Christians are products of the Pentecostal tradition. Pentecost was the birthday of the Church, was it not? The coming of the Holy Spirit, and all that.
You believe in the coming of the Holy Spirit, right? Then you are Pentecostal (or pentecostal, if you like). In fact, you are just as much pentecostal as you believe yourself to be catholic.
The fact that one particular tradition of Protestant enthusiasm has (wrongly, we would both agree) laid special claim to the term “Pentecostal” doesn’t change the fact that we are all heirs of Pentecost, just as you believe we are all “catholic” in the sense that you understand the word, despite how one ancient communion has laid special claim to that term (and here we would disagree on the legitimacy of this claim).
Yet you are willing to grant the “Pentecostals” their uppercase self-designation, but when it comes to the Catholic Church for some reason you seem to feel that our right to our name constitutes a threat to your own identity and self-understanding, and your only recourse is to deny us our name.
I find that fascinating.
…when it comes to the Catholic Church for some reason you seem to feel that our right to our name constitutes a threat to your own identity and self-understanding, and your only recourse is to deny us our name.
I would not presume to deny you the use of the name Catholic Church. I would simply advise you that on my blog, I would have to assume that that term (unmodified) is inclusive to my church. Luther burned the papal bull because it was invalid. Leo simply lacked the ability to boot us out. We are catholic. Why would I assume otherwise on my blog?
“Remember, Luther never meant to break away, and as far as we are concerned we never did.”
Perfect example of that subjective mentality – it reminds me of the old “We didn’t leave the Church! The Church left us!!”
Regardless of your subjective beliefs, or Luther’s subjective intent, the objective fact is, Luther left the Catholic Church and started his own “church.” That is precisely why you have now, your “local Lutheran Church.”
“Remember, Luther never meant to break away, and as far as we are concerned we never did.”
Perfect example of that subjective mentality – it reminds me of the old “We didn’t leave the Church! The Church left us!!”
Regardless of your subjective beliefs, or Luther’s subjective intent, the objective fact is, Luther left the Catholic Church and started his own “church.” That is precisely why you have now, your “local Lutheran Church.”
Theresa
When I introduce myself to people, the liberties and familiarity taken to shorten it to a familiar name strikes me as sometimes odd and insulting. (If someone introduces himself as Robert, don’t call him Bob until you know that is what he goes by. Jennifers are not “Jen” or “Jenny” until you get the ok!) People introduce themselves by a given moniker for a reason.
And don’t call “Christopher”, “Chris” unless you know as well…
btw: You can call me “Chris-2-4” if “Christopher” is too hard to pronounce…
Jay,
“I would simply advise you that on my blog, I would have to assume that that term (unmodified) is inclusive to my church.”
I thought you said you didn’t have a blog?
Regardless of your subjective beliefs, or Luther’s subjective intent, the objective fact is, Luther left the Catholic Church and started his own “church.” That is precisely why you have now, your “local Lutheran Church.”
Regardless of Leo’s subjective belief–no he didn’t.
“Regardless of Leo’s subjective belief–no he didn’t.”
To say that a Pope, who is the recognized head of the Catholic Church, cannot excommunicate a member of his flock, is as silly as saying that a company president or CEO cannot fire one of his own employees.
To say the Lutheran Church is a part of the Catholic Church is as silly as saying the US is a part of England.
Theresa
You could pretend to misunderstand in that way if you wish, yes, although you are again dodging the issue of whether you would equally pretend to misunderstand references to the Orthodox Church, the Pentecostals, etc.
But in fact, protest how you like, if you run across a reference to the Catholic Church (uppercase), in the absence of other context, if you had to bet what was really meant by this, you would go with my Church, the Church for which you currently have no good name and must go with such clumsy, neologistic circumlocutions as “Roman and Eastern catholic traditions.”
The retort of Augustine holds as good today to you as it did in his day:
That was as true in Luther’s day, protest how he might, as it is today. Again Augustine:
Again, from Cyril of Jerusalem:
As Jimmy has cogently pointed out in principles 1 and 3 above, language must serve the need to communicate as clearly and smoothly as possible. When stubborn principle gets in the way of being able to communicate effectively and efficiently, something has gone awry.
Your principle has apparently left you very nearly unable to hold a sustained conversation about my Church, for reasons noted long ago by Augustine and Cyril. That is not, it seems to me, a sustainable position.
I can prove that we are the Catholic Church. Witness a conversation I had just three short months ago with a non-denominational Evangelical:
her: my sister is married to a man from Lebanon.
me: Is he Christian? (as opposed to Muslim)
her: No, he’s Catholic.
So whenever Evangelical Christians wish to make the distinction between us and themselves, they don’t hesitate to call us by our proper name: Catholic.
Yes, we are Christian, too. We’re the original Chriatianity.
ARGH! My name disappeared again. The above post is mine.
“Now, or so it seems to me, suddenly THEY want to be called “catholic” and insist that WE are not “catholic.” ” —-Theresa
I don’t know whether this is a trend or fad but I have seen this as well. I had a letters-to-the-editor debate in our local paper with a Presbyterian minister on this very issue.
The quote to give such people is from Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree on Ecumenism #11. “Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.” That kind of thinking could be called false irenicism.
I notice there is a lingering thought among many that the Catholic Church in Vatican II may have decided to relinquish her claim to authenticity and her apostolic claim to catholicity, but the recent clarification from the Vatican should have laid to rest that fantasy.
SDG,
If I lived in the fourth century I would agree with Augustine. If I lived in the ninth, I would agree with Cyril. It was no doubt true in their time. Times have changed, however, and I do not think either of them intended that “test” to be valid for all time. They were only speaking for their time. Even if they did intend it to be valid for all time, can they infallibly predict the future, or what?
It is not wise to judge what is THE Church based on the who had the more successful public relations campaign.
when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house”
BTW, what if (today) there were an Eastern Church nearerby than a Latin Church. Where would a stranger inquiring about a Catholic Church be directed. (I honestly don’t know.) And what implication would that have for the Eastern Church?
Times change, Jay, but the Catholic Church is always the Catholic Church. That’s kinda the point, and is exactly what her founder intended.
This time sensitive relativism is strange to me.
I don’t see how Augustine’s or Cyril’s observances can be taken to be any less applicable in our day, except through sheer obstinacy.
Thanks much, SDG, for those references.
“It is not wise to judge what is THE Church based on the who had the more successful public relations campaign.”
This reminds me very much of what politicians often say after a sound drubbing at the polls… “Well, my opponent ran a more effective campaign, we were outspent, they had some very slick advertising, we didn’t get our message out”, etc…
It is too unpleasant to imagine that they lost because people maybe didn’t like them, or thought their ideas were dumb, or didn’t trust them. It’s never the candidate or the message that is the problem (in their mind) but always that they just didn’t deliver it as well as they should have, or that their opponent somehow fooled everyone.
So, some people want to believe that the preeminence of the Catholic Church must be the result of… better PR? Funny and quite telling at the same time.
This time sensitive relativism is strange to me.
If anything is relativistic, it is relying on prevailing public opinion to point you to the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is, as you say, the Catholic Church, regardless of a local’s subjective opinion when a stranger asks directions. Sheesh.
Anybody got a translation of the above?
I didn’t cite Augustine and Cyril as authoritative witnesses to a canonical “test” of the one true church. I cited them as experiential witnesses to a verifiable linguistic and cultural phenomenon regarding the identity and nomenclature of a particular, specific, concrete, visible communion — a communion with a visible, structural continuity from Augustine’s day to Cyril’s to Luther’s to ours, governed in their day as in ours by a visibly continuous succession of bishops believed to reign in the place of the apostles, with a ministerial priesthood and a sacrificial eucharist, among other things.
It’s fine with me if you want to argue that structural continuity by itself does not automatically entail integrity of identity or of principles; nor am I making an in-principle argument that the communion with the best claim to the name of the Catholic Church is automatically the one true church. In principle, you can argue if you wish (and I’ll certainly take issue with you, but it’s a separate issue from my point here) that this visible communion that Augustine and Cyril called the Catholic Church somehow went off the rails at some point, and that some other communion today (yours, for instance) better or at least equally represents the principles that Augustine and Cyril stood for. Fine — make that argument (and again I’ll fight you every step of the way, but it’s a different issue).
Even so, you can’t really deny that today, as in Luther’s day, Cyril’s day, and Augustine’s day, in the verifiable experience of the man on the street, when someone speaks without qualification of “the Catholic Church,” in point of fact this usage engenders little if any actual doubt or confusion as to the specific communion in question. In principle, whether we are right or wrong is one question; that we are the Catholic Church isn’t really subject to argument.
And, again, however it happened and however the blame is to be apportioned, there is really no denying the obvious fact that the followers of Martin Luther are and ever have been visibly and outwardly severed from this visible communion identified by Augustine and Cyril (again, led by a succession of bishops believed to reign in the place of the apostles). What Augustine and Cyril called the Catholic Church was a concrete community the continuing structures of which existed in Luther’s day and still exist today, and which Luther was and you are outwardly separated from.
If you want to argue that your church’s theology really represents the true essence of the faith proclaimed in Augustine’s and Cyril’s day by the Catholic Church, you’re welcome to try to make that argument (good luck with that), but there is just no way that you can claim that what Augustine and Cyril called the Catholic Church is something that you today are just as much a part of as we are.
It would depend on whether the church were Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (and while the Orthodox lay just as much claim to be catholic as we Catholics do to be orthodox, when I say Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, everyone — you, me and they — knows exactly what I mean).
The various parts of this thread that debate whether or not the Catholic Church is rightfully called “catholic” are indeed interesting; however, they tend to miss the salient point of actual practice:
In truth, if any stranger were to approach you and ask, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church?” where would you instinctively point him?
H.T.: St. Augustine.
The confusion here seems to be between the name of a thing and a description of that thing. The fact that a particular church is named “the Catholic Church” does not imply that it is the catholic church, anymore than the fact a man’s last name is “Butler” implies that he is a butler, or the fact that a man’s last name is “Armstrong” implies that he has mighty biceps. One can think that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is named the Holy Roman Empire. There aren’t any grapes or nuts in Grapenuts, but that’s still the name of the cereal. Etc.
The fact that a particular church is named “the Catholic Church” does not imply that it is the catholic church
I agree… just look at folks who call themselves “Dr.” such as those w-rappers, Dr. Dre and what have you.
One can think that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is named the Holy Roman Empire.
True… The Catholic Church has been the “Catholic Church” from time immemorial.
I didn’t cite Augustine and Cyril as authoritative witnesses to a canonical “test” of the one true church. I cited them as experiential witnesses to a verifiable linguistic and cultural phenomenon…
OK. I misunderstood.
there is really no denying the obvious fact that the followers of Martin Luther are and ever have been visibly and outwardly severed from this visible communion identified by Augustine and Cyril
When, in history did this happen? Was it Luther’s “excommunication”? Was it at the conclusion of the Diet of Augsburg, when the Holy Roman Emperor brought together both sides to hash out their differences? Was it at the conclusion of Trent, when a laundry list of dogmas were solidified making Lutherans visible outsiders?
Augsburg is especially interesting to me. No one presumes to call it an Ecumenical Council, but the similarities are there. It was called by an emperor to settle disputes of doctrine for one thing. The Emperor asked both sides to be prepared to explain what they thought it meant to be Catholic. The Lutherans did and produced the Augsburg Confession. The delegation from Rome didn’t but did write a response to the Augsburg Confession called the confutation. The Lutherans responded to that with an Apology to the AC.
If you ask me who came out of this meeting called by an Emperor (which I will not presume to call a council) with the more concise and coherent statement of what it means to be catholic, it was the Lutherans. Sure I think the Emperor “declared” the Roman representatives as the winners, but I don’t believe there is precedent for Emperor’s being able to declare correct doctrine, only to call the council.
I didn’t cite Augustine and Cyril as authoritative witnesses to a canonical “test” of the one true church. I cited them as experiential witnesses to a verifiable linguistic and cultural phenomenon regarding the identity and nomenclature of a particular, specific, concrete, visible communion — a communion with a visible, structural continuity from Augustine’s day to Cyril’s to Luther’s to ours, governed in their day as in ours by a visibly continuous succession of bishops believed to reign in the place of the apostles, with a ministerial priesthood and a sacrificial eucharist, among other things.
SDG,
This was a remarkable summary; however, I would have preferred:
“…governed in their day as in ours by a visibly continuous succession of bishops that reign in the place of the apostles, with a ministerial priesthood and a sacrificial Eucharist, among other things.”
The poster said the following:
“one of the key philosophers I have been looking at is Catholic, I started considering the Roman Church. Forgive me, for “Catholic” means both “Universal” and “Whole”. To accept the Roman Church as “whole” would, in my mind, be the same as agreeing that the Roman Church finds its author in Christ. This may very-well be true, and that is what I hope to explore. ”
Well may we ask who is this “philiospher” and is that the best reason for deciding you want to be Catholic? It is wonderful that you have chosen such, but it is clear you already come in with predispositions where the church is expected to bend to suit you, sort of like you are shopping for a car or a good suit and with the right tailor (in this case Bishop) you may just find the right parish that is liberal or middle of the road enough for you
The Catholic church is the ONE true church by where there is no salvation out of, no matter how hard the church itself has tried to say otherwise to be ecumenical. We are a church that demands much in the way of sacrifice and though the standards have been lowered dramatically these past 40 years, it will restore herself to her greatness, and to not be part of a church that has withstood the test of time is your loss I can only say, possibly the loss is your soul which is
the sad part
God bless you on your journey
Those are all fine questions for the historians. Not being a historian, it seems to me that something momentous happened at Augsburg when the German princes defied Charles V and supported Luther’s teachings, essentially guaranteeing the future of the Lutheran movement and the Reformation. But when a schism becomes a schism is a canonical question about which opinions may differ, especially on opposite sides of the schism. The realities after the fact are harder to dispute.
With which of the following would you take issue?
1. The Catholic Church referred to by Augustine and Cyril was a concrete, specific communion led and governed by a visible, continuous succession of bishops believed to reign in the place of the apostles, with a ministerial priesthood and a sacrificial eucharist.
2. This visible, structural continuity, with its succession of bishops and ministerial priesthood, continued into Luther’s day and still continues today.
3. Throughout its history this visible, structural continuity has been and is still today known as the Catholic Church.
4. At the end of his life Luther was part of a visible, concrete communion that was neither governed by the visible, structural continuity of bishops, nor claimed to be governed by bishops reigning in the place of the apostles, or to have a ministerial priesthood or a sacrificial eucharist.
5. The same is true today of those various communions that are descended from that communion to which Luther belonged at the end of his life.
I didn’t have to look at the name at the bottom of the post. I just noted the tone, and knew who the author would be.
With which of the following would you take issue?
1. Yes they believe the Catholic Church was a concete communion. They may have believed it was administered by a succession of bishops, but I doubt they believed it was necessarily admininstered as such. I doubt they were imagined to be “reigning” in place of apostles. If they believed in “sacraficial eucharist”, let them be accursed.
5. There are no “various communions that are descended from that communion to which Luther belonged at the end of his life”. There are only confessional evangelicals, who who believe, teach and confess the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.
The “let them be accursed” connection says nothing about “sacraficial eucharist”. Talk about grasping at straws!
John,
To be Catholic, shouldn’t one mentally assent to its tenets? That is, shouldn’t one *believe* in things that Catholicism teaches?
That’s all the reader is trying to do.
Lighten up.
Jay, you’ve just essentially accursed the entire early church. Agreement in the early church regarding the ministerial priesthood and eucharistic sacrifice was uncontroversial and unanimous; not only was the belief widespread and well attested (Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, everybody), there is no record of any denial or opposition anywhere from the earliest centuries onward. There is just no record of any controversy or countervailing opinion at all.
Secondly, Augustine and Cyril, like other fathers of their respective periods, believed that the succession of bishops from the apostles was instituted by Jesus Christ and as such was divinely constitutive of the Church (and yes, the bishops “reigned,” i.e., governed or ruled, in place of the apostles). For them, there was no more question of getting away from the succession of bishops and creating new church structures than of throwing away the scriptures and writing new sacred texts. Again, this belief is amply attested and uncontroversial; I should think that any serious Protestant patristic scholar would say essentially the same.
Really? The organization to which Luther belonged no longer exists in any way, shape or form?
Jimmy,
I think there’s a typo here:
“The obvious reason is that I don’t think that adhering to Mormonism makes you a saint, but that’s the reason I find the term objectionable”
I think you meant:
“but that’s not the reason I find the term objectionable”
Smoky: No, read it again. Jimmy meant what he said: It’s “the reason I find the term objectionable. It’s not the reason I won’t use it.” In other words, depending on circumstances, Jimmy is willing to use some objectionable terms but not others.
SDG,
Thanks. Sorry for any confusion. I suppose the placement of “but” threw me off. Maybe phrasing as:
“The obvious reason is that I don’t think that adhering to Mormonism makes you a saint. That’s the reason I find the term objectionable, but it’s not the reason I won’t use it.”
would be clearer? Anyhoo.
“I suppose the placement of “but” threw me off.”
The placement of one’s “but” can be very important. A very weighty issue, for some, and even a small miscalculation could “throw one off”.
Are you mocking me Tim? 🙂
I waited all day long in the other thread for Gerald to ask me that question (not that he would have called me Tim). Some days you just never get a break. :‑(
One of my favorite scenes from Toy Story…
Buzz: “You’re… mocking me, aren’t you?”
Anyway, ‘scuse my flippancy… I have been kinda punchy all day, and the whole “placement of the ‘but'” thing just popped into my head and ended up in the combox before I could stop myself.
Y’uns *please* continue.
Oh no no no no no… TIM LOOK AN ALIEN!!
LOL
I doubt they were imagined to be “reigning” in place of apostles. If they believed in “sacraficial eucharist”, let them be accursed.
Note that for “reigning” he linked in:
“But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant'” — which contradicts his claim. To lay down rules to govern those in a position of ruling presupposes that such positions think.
And the “let them be accursed” passage is “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” — which, as has been said above says nothing about sacrificial Eucharist. If we investigate what the Eucharist did mean, we find that it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and whoever eats or drinks without knowing this is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, Who explicitly said when He instituted it that it was the body and blood that would be sacrificed for us.
Uh, Ted Kennedy’s nickname is for Edward (which does not mean gift of God), not Theodore (which does). It’s a dual-purpose nickname, like some others.
I know. I was making a point, but you are right. Edward means “wealth protector” which is fitting for the senator if you are referring to his wealth, but not fitting if you are referring to anyone else’s wealth (particularly Republicans).
I’ll try another.
I refuse to refer to the Devil as “Lucifer”, which means “carrier of light”. I will now refer to the devil as Joe.
Coffee is the devil?
Why not refer to Teddy as the devil? Or the devil as Teddy?
Sounds right to me… it seems they will be spending a lot of time together unless one repents, and I pray that he does. Moreover both delight in the blood of innocents shed for their deity Moloch.
God Bless,
Matt
ps. Jarnor23, you need to attack what I said or defend what your wife said, just crying that we opposed her position is silly. Do you disagree that we should take Teddy’s wanderings from Catholic truth very seriously rather than brush them off as your wife did?
Oh for heaven’s sake.
Jarnor, I don’t think anyone was attacking your wife by saying Jeff was joking. I think they just wanted to make sure that no one thought Jeff was intentionally denying the faith.
Matt, Joanna did *not* brush off Mr. Kennedy’s wanderings by pointing out he’s loved by God. She wanted to make that point that in *spite* of his sins, we need to love him because God loves every person.
Basically, everyone on this threads agrees that Ted Kennedy has committed some objectively evil acts, and also that God loves Ted Kennedy and all his children and wants us all to repent of our sins. So let’s not rip into each other’s throats!
The answer to the Eastern Catholic Church and the Latin Catholic Church being located near each other is simple. You refer to the specific rite. St. John Maronite Catholic Church, and St. Anthony Claret Roman (or Latin) Catholic Church. This situation actually exists in the Diocese of Orange
Theresa wrote: Is this reticence to call Catholics/Catholic Church by our proper name a new phenomenon?
A different Teresa answers: No, it is not new. You can find in early nineteenth-century anti-Catholicism, as well. Words like “Papist” and “Romanists” were deliberately used instead of “Catholic” or even “Roman Catholic” by writers like Charlotte Tonna. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find the practice in the eighteenth century or earlier as well.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Boy, I didn’t realize I’d start a scuffle!! 😉
Jarnor, I don’t think anyone was attacking your wife by saying Jeff was joking. I think they just wanted to make sure that no one thought Jeff was intentionally denying the faith.
I am definitely NOT denying the faith…especially since I’m not Catholic. Of course, that could change…
Anyway, I certainly didn’t mean to cause any serious problems. I was simply making a point that if people refuse to call others by their name (or their group’s name) based on the technical meaning and how one may appear to be endorsing said meaning, communication would be difficult. (This coming from a Texas Aggie that will NOT call that school in Austin by the name they use . I will refer to them as the Longhorns or as t.u. [just another Texas university, not THE university of….], but with one caveat – the horns must be sawed off ASAP!!)
And the “let them be accursed” passage is “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” — which, as has been said above says nothing about sacrificial Eucharist.
Depending on what you mean by “sacrificial Eucharist”, it can be another gospel.
The way you described it sounds OK.
Jesus offered himself as the guild offering and gives us his body and blood for our forgiveness (is how I understand it).
SDG: Not being a historian, it seems to me that something momentous happened at Augsburg when the German princes defied Charles V and supported Luther’s teachings, essentially guaranteeing the future of the Lutheran movement and the Reformation.
That does seem significant. But at that point, who broke from whom (religiously speaking, not politically)? Augsburg produced a concise expression of Christian faith by the Lutherans. The Roman delegation did not bring an expression of faith to the Augsburg table. What were the Lutherans theologically breaking from?
Yes, the Roman delegation did provide a rather rushed response to the Augsburg confession, but those points were answered in the Apology to the AC. There would not be a concise expression of faith from the Romans until Trent, making any alleged theological brake by the Lutherans ex post facto at best.
I figured Jeff was likely joking, it doesn’t make my wife’s point invalid.
More to the point though, Matt was implying that because Kennedy supports policies that hurt others, somehow my wife’s observation was wrong about God loving him. That’s a dark road to travel. So, Matt, since you ask what I suggest, I suggest you love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, as I said in the first place. You can decry Kennedy’s actions and others like him, but you can’t dehumanize them, equating them with demons, or say God does not love them, or you are a liar.
Pffft, as if the Lutherans believe in anything anymore. Openly homosexual “pastors” in the ELCA now. For years I wondered if we were somehow God’s church why we had no stance on anything and everything was just fine to do, nothing’s immoral or wrong. It took me a while to see the level of moral relativism and political pandering, which really started day 1 with Luther. I’m just glad to be in the Church that Jesus Christ set up for us to be in now.
I’m just reporting what the patristic record attests regarding the uncontested faith of the early Fathers regarding the sacrificial character of the Eucharist and the sacerdotal office of the ministers who offer it. As for how it is understood in Catholic theology, you will find that amply documented in the recent combox dialogue with Steve Camp (perhaps starting here).
Not sure what a “guild offering” is. Jesus offered himself on the cross once for all to save mankind, and that once-for-all sacrifice is made present on every altar at every Mass, is how I understand it; again, see the discussion above.
These historical questions are significant and worth discussing, but they are tertiary issues and not really my bag. I’m quite willing to concede, as I suggested above and as my Church has acknowledged some time ago, that in the unhappy history of Christian division, “often enough, men on both sides were to blame.” So be it. I’m not looking to lay all the blame at Luther’s feet and excuse everyone involved on the Roman side.
But the fact of the division remains, and in examining the various parties that exist in the post-Reformation world it isn’t hard to identify, on the one hand, the one communion in which the visible, structural continuity with the Catholic Church of Cyril and Augustine is maintained, and on the other hand the various communions that had no existence prior to the upheaval. As Thomas Howard, while still an Anglican, once put it (more or less; I don’t currently have a complete source for the quote):
FWIW.
Amen.
Jay D: Jesus offered himself as the guild offering and gives us his body and blood for our forgiveness (is how I understand it).
SDG: Not sure what a “guild offering” is.
Guilt offering (oops).
Jesus is the Guilt offering. Christians (who are part of the priesthood of all believers) may eat of the guilt offering and any who makes atonement with it shall have it.
But the fact of the division remains, and in examining the various parties that exist in the post-Reformation world it isn’t hard to identify, on the one hand, the one communion in which the visible, structural continuity with the Catholic Church of Cyril and Augustine is maintained
That sounds incredibly shallow. You are basing your whole judgement on the most superficial of outward appearances. The New Testament does not teach us to be content with the appearance of our would-be teachers.
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Doesn’t it even strike you that it is you who preach a gospel other than what the Apostles actually taught?
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.
Jesus said He would be His Church —
I don’t see anything in Scripture telling of a plurality of churches — just a SINGULAR Church.
If Protestant churches are the true churches, than just which of these several thousands carry the authentic message of the Gospel?
Each contradict the other!
I don’t think you’re following me.
I’ve already said, repeatedly, that I am not here and now making an in-principle argument that the visible, structural communion that Augustine and Cyril knew as the Catholic Church is today the one true church. What is the one true church, and what is the truth of the gospel, is outside the scope of my current point, which is very modest and straightforward.
I have explicitly allowed that you are free to argue that structural continuity by itself does not automatically entail integrity of identity or of principles, that the visible communion that Augustine and Cyril called the Catholic Church somehow went off the rails at some point, and that some other communion today (yours, for instance) better or at least equally represents the principles that Augustine and Cyril stood for. You’d be wrong, but the rebuttal of such error is beyond the scope of my current point.
My current point is very simply that (a) the visible, structural communion that Augustine and Cyril knew as the Catholic Church was still known as the Catholic Church in Martin Luther’s day and continues to be known as the Catholic Church today, and (b) I’m in it and you’re not.
Whose church is true, and what is the full truth of the gospel, may be a much more important subject than what is the Catholic Church. But we happened to be talking about the latter, not the former.
My current point is very simply that (a) the visible, structural communion that Augustine and Cyril knew as the Catholic Church was still known as the Catholic Church in Martin Luther’s day and continues to be known as the Catholic Church today, and (b) I’m in it and you’re not.
My point is that it is superficial to judge what is or is not catholic based on outward appearances (the “visible” part you spoke about).
I do not believe Augustine and Cyril defined cathlocity on structrual trappings.
Maybe Cyril actually. I don’t know much about that guy. If he did he was superficial too.
I do not believe Augustine and Cyril defined cathlocity on structrual trappings.
Then, clearly, you haven’t read his works (e.g., Enchiridion, Commentaries, Homilies).
But I’m not doing that (though Augustine does; see below). For my present purposes, I’m content to say that what is “catholic” in some in-principle sense is one question; what has always been known as the Catholic Church from earliest centuries to today is another.
You’d be wrong. From St. Augustine:
This is essentially the common faith of the early fathers as we have it in the patristic record. The church, governed by bishops in the line of the apostles, has its constitution from Jesus Christ; it is divinely so constituted, and man has no authority to see it otherwise.
This was precisely St. Augustine’s argument against the Donatists: No matter how corrupt or false various office-holders in the Church may be, it is Jesus’ Church, not ours, and we have no authority to go off and start new organizations unconnected with the ones established by Jesus Christ.
SDG: Whose church is true, and what is the full truth of the gospel, may be a much more important subject than what is the Catholic Church. But we happened to be talking about the latter, not the former.
This idea perplexes me. How can the two be separate? The full truth of the gospel is catholic.
Thanks mightily, SDG, for the references and perspective.
It was no doubt due to evidence like that of Augustine (above) that schismatic groups came to posit earlier and earlier dates for the Church having “gone off the rails”, as you say.
Some make it sound as if the body of the last martyred apostle was still warm when the entire Church was sucked into wholesale apostacy. “That MUST be what makes the early Church appear so Catholic! We have to dig deep and find evidence of the REAL Church…”, etc…
Augustine: the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone
This is my favorite part. The name “Catholic” belongs to “this Church” (which he described above as having having the see of Peter and whatnot) not without reason.
In other words, there was a reason the name Catholic belonged to that Church.
You want me to believe the continuation of that Church in Augustine’s day deserves the name Catholic without reason–just because it is a continuation of the same structrue.
It was not without reason that Augustine judged that Church deserving the name Catholic. What is that reason?
You are using “catholic,” quite rightly, as an adjective. I am referring to the “Catholic Church” as the indisputably established proper name belonging, as universally acknowledged in Augustine’s day, in Cyril’s day, in Luther’s day and in our day, to one specific, concrete, visible, organically continuous communion.
It is in varying degrees similar to how how we can distinguish between what is orthodox and which are the Orthodox Churches, who are the true witnesses of Jehovah and who are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, what is the church of Christ and what is the Church of Christ (or the United Church of Christ), which churches are episcopal and what is the Episcopal Church, who is evangelical or pentecostal and who is Evangelical or Pentecostal, etc., etc.
I don’t at all mean to say that there is no connection at all between the two senses and the two questions. In some cases there are groups that claim a term to which they have no right at all: the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not at all true witnesses of Jehovah. In other cases groups claim a term to which they have a proper but not special or unique claim: Evangelicals are indeed evangelical, but they are not uniquely evangelical, evangelical in a special sense that excludes other Christians.
The Catholic Church claims to be not just catholic, but uniquely and fully catholic, catholic in a way that only she is catholic, such that other Christians, though related to the Catholic Church in various ways, do not fully participate in the reality of catholicity. To what degree the Catholic Church’s two-millennia claim on her name constitutes an argument for her true catholicity is a matter of individual judgment. Augustine believed it was a significant argument. So do I, though I haven’t made that argument here.
“I do not believe Augustine and Cyril defined cathlocity on structrual trappings.”
“Catholicity” is only ONE “mark” of the True Church – the other 3 are: “One” “Holy” and “Apostolic” – so while you may try to argue that the Catholic Church does not fit your definition of “catholic,” the Fathers lookes also to the unity, apostilicity, and holiness of the Church founded by Christ.
And, no, “Holiness” does not mean Her members are Holy. It means that the Church, like Her Divine Founder, is both human and divine, and it is the fact that the Church is Christ’s Bride, as well as His Body, that makes Her Holy.
Theresa
“Not without reason” is Augustine’s affirmation that the Catholic Church “which he described above as having having the see of Peter and whatnot” was not just called “the Catholic Church” (which everyone, even the heretics, acknowledged, however grudgingly), but truly was in Augustine’s belief fully, definitively and uniquely catholic (which of course the heretics, all of whom wished to call themselves “catholic,” would bitterly have contested).
Augustine’s point was: Protest however you like that your group, whatever it may be, is “really” catholic, it is the Catholic Church (this communion with the see of Peter and whatnot) that has the name, and — so Augustine believed, and so do I — rightly so (“not without reason”).
Why rightly so? Because it (this communion with the see of Peter and whatnot) was instituted by Jesus Christ, the universal Savior of mankind, and all men universally are called to belong to it; because it alone (this communion with the see of Peter and whatnot) professes the fulness, the catholic wholeness, of revealed truth, and offers the fulness of the means of salvation; because it (this communion with the see of Peter and whatnot) has in fact gone out into all the world and shown forth the catholic nature of Christ’s church in a way no other communion has done.
You are of course free to dissent with all this, just as the heretics did in Augustine’s day. But the Catholic Church, the specific communion Augustine clung to and defended, is still here today, see of Peter and all, and I continue to cling to it for the same reasons Augustine did.
You are using “catholic,” quite rightly, as an adjective. I am referring to the “Catholic Church” as the indisputably established proper name belonging, as universally acknowledged in Augustine’s day, in Cyril’s day, in Luther’s day and in our day, to one specific, concrete, visible, organically continuous communion.
OK, OK, fine. “Catholic Church” in your useage is a proper noun, which may or may not be a misnomer.
SDG: To what degree the Catholic Church’s two-millennia claim on her name constitutes an argument for her true catholicity is a matter of individual judgment. Augustine believed it was a significant argument. So do I, though I haven’t made that argument here.
Augustine judged the proper noun “Catholic Church” deserving of the name catholic in his day–not without reason. You haven’d made that arguement here. This does not necessarily follow that Augustine, if he fell asleep and woke up today would find that the proper noun “Catholic Church” worthy of the name catholic in our day, because a proper noun does or does not deserve the name Catholic “not without reason”.
Because this visible structure today derives from the visible structure in Augustine’s day is not a reason unless it is *exactly* the same (no docternal development or whatever). The visible struture deserved the name catholic in Augustine’s day for a reason. The visible structure has to deserve the name catholic in our day for a reason.
SDG: Why rightly so? Because it (this communion with the see of Peter and whatnot) was instituted by Jesus Christ, the universal Savior of mankind, and all men universally are called to belong to it; because it alone (this communion with the see of Peter and whatnot) professes the fulness, the catholic wholeness, of revealed truth, and offers the fulness of the means of salvation; because it (this communion with the see of Peter and whatnot) has in fact gone out into all the world and shown forth the catholic nature of Christ’s church in a way no other communion has done.
Now we get to it. First of all, did Augustine ever say Jesus Christ instituted the visible struture?
So, these are the reasons Augustine thought the proper noun “Catholic Church” was deserving the name in his day. I would use the same reasons to judge wheter the proper noun “Catholic Church” is deserving the name today.
For example, does the Catholic Church today “profess the fulness, the catholic wholeness, of revealed truth”?
No.
Certainly. For instance, in our present passage, Augustine directly connects the “present episcopate” and “the succession of priests from the very see of the apostle Peter” to the divine activity of “the Lord [who] after his resurrection gave the charge of feeding his sheep” to Peter. The visible structure, the apostolic succession of bishops and priests, the see of Peter, comes directly from the Lord’s hand.
As I said, this was Augustine’s argument against in the Donatists: The Church, the actual visible structure, comes from Jesus Christ, and we cannot put it aside and found something else.
As did the heretics in Augustine’s day, and unsurprisingly you come to the same answer — the opposite of Augustine’s answer.
Thanks for giving us the courtesy of our name. What specifically do you feel belongs to the catholic wholeness of revealed truth as believed by, say, Augustine, that is not professed by the Catholic Church today?
SDG: Thanks for giving us the courtesy of our name.
If you really mean that the adjective proper nounitized to “Catholic Church” means the communion with the see of Peter and whatnot, you can have it. I didn’t previously know that’s what you meant by it. As for me, I’m part of the Church, catholic, and wouldn’t hesitate to join Augustine’s fourth century Catholic Church. Indeed, the fourth century Catholic Church would have no desire to boot either me or Luther out.
SDG: What specifically do you feel belongs to the catholic wholeness of revealed truth as believed by, say, Augustine, that is not professed by the Catholic Church today?
It would be easier to say what I believe is the poper catholic wholeness of Christian truth. It is described in the Lutheran confessional documents, the Book of Concord.
I’m sorry, that may be easier, but it isn’t what I asked, nor does it justify the claim you made above when you asked ‘does the Catholic Church today “profess the fulness, the catholic wholeness, of revealed truth’?” and then answered your own question with an unequivocal “No.”
Please explain your answer. On what grounds do you deny that the Catholic Church today professes the fulness, the catholic wholeness, of revealed truth? Specifically, what in particular do you feel belongs to the catholic wholeness of revealed truth as believed by, say, Augustine, that is not professed by the Catholic Church today?
If you were a part of Augustine’s fourth century Catholic Church, and if you truly shared his faith, you would have believed as he did that that visible Church, having been founded by Jesus Christ, is indefectable and cannot fail to continue to uphold the fulness of the Catholic faith until the end of time.
So, you would be a part of Augustine’s fourth-century Catholic Church, with its apostolic succession of bishops, see of Peter, eucharistic sacrifice, ministerial priesthood, baptismal regeneration, purgatory and prayers for the dead, prayers to saints, veneration of Mary, penance for sins and so on?
And the reason you are separated from that same Church today is…?
It isn’t necessarily easy to know how the fourth century Catholic Church might have responded to someone like you or Luther, since the fact is that they didn’t have anyone around back then whose beliefs were enough like yours or Luther’s for us to get an idea.
The question one must answer for oneself is: Did the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church Jesus founded or did they not prevail?
SDG: And the reason you are separated from that same Church today is…?
I told you what I believe to be the fullness of Christian truth, you would have to ask it (the Catholic Church) why I don’t belong.
AFAIC, I’m catholic.
SDG: If you were a part of Augustine’s fourth century Catholic Church, and if you truly shared his faith, you would have believed as he did that that visible Church, having been founded by Jesus Christ, is indefectable and cannot fail to continue to uphold the fulness of the Catholic faith until the end of time.
Saying that it is not without reason that the entity called the Catholic Church deserved the name catholic is a long way from saying that entity will necessarily always deserve the name. I would also say the fourth century Catholic Church deserved the name.
You continue to dodge the question. On what grounds do you deny that the Catholic Church today professes the fulness, the catholic wholeness, of revealed truth? What in particular do you feel belongs to the catholic wholeness of revealed truth as believed by, say, Augustine, that is not professed by the Catholic Church today?
That’s not what Augustine believed. Augustine saw the Petrine succession in Rome against the backdrop of Jesus’ promise to build His Church on Peter:
In that light, to say that that Church with the episcopal succession from Peter could cease to be Catholic is tantamount to denying the Lord’s promise that against the Church so built the gates of hell would never prevail.
SDG: You continue to dodge the question. On what grounds do you deny that the Catholic Church today professes the fulness, the catholic wholeness, of revealed truth?
I spoke to hastily before. I do not presume to deny any such thing. I only profess what I believe is Christian truth.
If I were to ask you “am I member of the Catholic Church?” you would probably say no*. If you said no, I would ask you why I wasn’t, then we would learn something about any Catholic doctrines that may or may not be unsound.
*I would have no problem with you saying “yes”, as I consider myself catholic, so that would only be fitting.
Jay D, thanks, I appreciate your latest comments. Will be back a bit later to respond.
The reformation and the German Princes support of Luther had as much to do about money as it did about theology. The same for the Anglican church.
This is why I can only laugh at those that throw barbs at the traditionalists, where money (except for lack of on their part) is and have never been the issue but the destruction and loss of souls to the secular world, where other schisms have and always will be about money for the most part at least
Once more, in English?
Tim,
Don’t encourage him, please.
Just when the debate between Jay D & SDG was going along pretty well…
I detect a lack of oxygen.
Theresa (of the 9/3, 4:30pm post), thanks for your posts. Exactly my reaction to what I’ve read here.
If you said no, I would ask you why I wasn’t
Does this discussion boil down to Petrine authority?
What cracks me up about all this is that there’s a claim being made here that Lutherans are a part of the catholic Church, while maintaining that they are not a part of the Church insofar as to follow any of her teachings. This goes so far as to deny catholic teaching utterly, from denying the truth of the Eucharist almost immediately, to finding actively gay clergy just fine today.
If Christ’s Church is to be indeed catholic, there’d have to be unity about the crucial ethical matters. How could Christ’s Church, protected against hell, teach error in one arm, while the other does not? His Church is one body, with many parts, but the whole body must work together. When the hand says it’s going to go across the road, but the body should stay there, it severs itself to do so.
The sooner you realize that while there were problems, Luther wasn’t some amazing genius who had all the answers Christ didn’t, the sooner you abandon Lutheranism and come to His true Catholic Church. I only regret wasting years in doing so based on misunderstandings and lies of what the Catholic Church truly is and what she teaches.
Thanks, Mary Kay.
“Does this discussion boil down to Petrine authority?”
It’s interesting that Aquinas had this to say about the character of heresy:
“The real character of rank heresy consists in lack of submission to the divine teaching authority in the head of the Church.”
In Christ,
Theresa
“I only regret wasting years in doing so based on misunderstandings and lies of what the Catholic Church truly is and what she teaches.”
This downright lying that goes on about the Catholic Church stuns me! I’m not saying that the people who say things, like, “Jesus doesn’t come running when your priests ring a bell!” are intentionally lying, but they are believing this nonsense, and passing it on to others. Satan is the father of lies, and only he can really be responsible for such bizarre twists of the truth of what is happening. In any kingdom, bells ring and trumpets blare to announce the presence of the king – and that is exactly what the meaning of the bell ringing at Mass is – that the King of Kings has come!
Anyone who would twist the truth in such a way is a liar, and even more tragic, millions believe them, without question. And these are the very ones who accuse us Catholics of “blindly following” the pope!
Just venting about the lies being told about us, and our Church.
Andre,
I know it’s you masquarading as “Theresa”.
Quit it, okay???
Speaking of lies, it’s amazing that you’ve resorted (once again, I might add) to deception just to mislead people here!
Ok, guys sit back and let SDG and JayD continue this. I’m Catholic so i’m biased but i think SDG is on a roll here 😉
That is exactly correct — asterisk and all. :‑) In other words, yes, I would say that you are not a member of the Catholic Church, but with qualifications.
The fact that you are a Christian, united to Jesus Christ in the one rebirth of baptism, the waters of regeneration, places you in some important way under the mantle of Mother Church. You are linked to the Catholic Church, even if not fully incorporated into her. For this reason, as a Catholic Christian, I call you my brother in Christ, albeit separated.
Why separated?
Because, with Augustine and other fathers from the earliest centuries of the Catholic Church, I believe that Jesus Christ, the universal Savior, in laying the foundations of the universal Church, commissioned the apostles and their successors after them to lead, teach and govern in His name.
With Augustine and other fathers from the earliest centuries of the Catholic Church, I believe that there is no Catholic Church apart from the bishops who govern in the place of the apostles, who perpetuate the ministerial priesthood and the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice.
With Augustine and other fathers from the earliest centuries of the Catholic Church, I believe that the universal Savior gave a universal commission to St. Peter and to his successors, the bishops of Rome. These beliefs are part and parcel of the faith of Augustine and the other early fathers; there is no solidarity with them against the Catholic Church on these points of faith.
Only to Peter did Jesus give the solemn, threefold commission to “Feed My sheep” (John 21). We are all His sheep; He has no sheep who fall outside the pastoral charge given to Peter. Only to Peter did He entrust the keys of the kingdom, the token of the chief steward of the son of David (cf. Isa 22:22). Only Peter is the rock on which the universal Savior built the universal church.
To this universal church, built upon the rock of Peter and governed by his successors, our Lord is faithful to His promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail. This church is and remains ever catholic, not by dint of the personal holiness and fidelity of her officers, but by the promise of her Lord. That which is not built upon the rock of Peter and governed by his successors is not the Catholic Church.
As a baptized Christian, you are in relation to the Catholic Church, yet you belong to a religious body that neither recognizes nor follows, but is severed from, those who hold the divine authority from Jesus Christ given (so with Augustine I believe) to the apostles and their successors, and from the one who sits in the chair of Peter.
Here again I hasten to add that how this sad division came about, and how blame is to be apportioned, is no part of my present brief. I have no wish whatever to lay all the blame at the feet of the Reformers and to exculpate the sons of Rome from all blame. Far from it. There are and ever have been zealous (albeit corrupted) Catholics in hell, just as surely there are ardent (albeit misguided) sons of the Reformation in Heaven. (That’s not to say of course that the Reformers, Luther included, bear no blame. But that subject is beyond my present argument.)
Be that as it may, the division is real, and as it happens you are with those who are separated from the visible structures given (so with Augustine and other fathers from the earliest centuries of the Catholic Church I believe) by Jesus Christ, the universal Savior, to be constitutive of His universal church.
You are thus in relation to the Catholic Church, but not yet fully incorporated into her. In the person of his universal chief steward, the successor of Peter, Jesus Christ calls you to be fully incorporated into his universal church, to be reconciled to his ministers the bishops, and to participate in the eucharistic sacrifice.
You are thus in relation to the Catholic Church, but not yet fully incorporated into her.
Do you proclaim yourself to be “fully incorporated”?
Just venting about the lies being told about us, and our Church.
“If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?”
Being lied about is a mark of the Church.
“Being lied about is a mark of the Church.”
How true! The more the world hates us, the more I realize that we really are the Body of Christ – and if He suffered rejection, calumny, insult, etc, we can expect more of the same.
“Speaking of lies, it’s amazing that you’ve resorted (once again, I might add) to deception just to mislead people here!”
Excuse me???
Esau,
Since anyone on this board can right-click on my name and see that I have listed my legitimate email address, buy YOU have not given us the same courtesy, I wonder just who is deceiving whom.
I challenge you to quote a single thing I have written that can be construed as “deception just to mislead people here!”
Otherwise, I expect an apology for lying about me.
jarnor23,
you are completely misunderstanding my objection, it is not that GOd loves TK that I object to, that’s ridiculous. This is the line that raised umbrage:
may not always act in line with their alleged faith
That is a gross understatement which more aptly describes a good Catholic striving for holiness… it doesn’t describe the violence that Teddy Kennedy has committed against the most innocent, he acts in complete opposition to the faith… and obstinately so.
I suggest for you to be a little more objective, and try to understand the point being made rather than rashly defending the indefensible.
God Bless,
Matt
Why do you ask, B’Ernie?
Not that I mind answering. Here is how Lumen Gentium describes the state in question (enumeration added):
(1), of course, may apply to those outside the visible structure of the Church as well as inside it, Jay D as well as me. This is ultimately for God to judge; for myself, I am well content with such assurance as I have of God’s friendship and the sojourning of the Holy Spirit in my soul.
On Easter Vigil 1992, having already effectively accepted (2) for some time previous, I signed up for (3), with (4) into the bargain as a function of the first three. (Of course this means that defects in (1) would carry over to (4), which gets us back to God having the last word.)
(P.S. Esau, I would write to you privately if I had an address… I don’t know what you’re thinking, man.)
Thanks SDG,
If I understand you correctly, I am a qualified non-member of the Catholic Church because… I am not a member of the Catholic Church. You can recognize that I am a qualified non-member Catholic because I “belong to a religious body that neither recognizes nor follows, but is severed from, those who hold the divine authority from Jesus Christ given (so with Augustine I believe) to the apostles and their successors, and from the one who sits in the chair of Peter.” which is to say the religious body I belong to is a non-member of the Catholic Church because it is a non-member of the Catholic Church.
It seems to me that if you are going to claim the name catholic, you have to do better than that:
I say “Great! That Church is the universal Christian Church. Surely I am included in such a universal church.” I think you need a better answer than “you are not a member of the universal Church because you are not a member of the universal Church.”
As Augustine said “the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics”
The other Churches are filled with heretics! Augustine wouldn’t call a Church filled with heretics “Catholic”.
In other words, your answer is no.
If that’s how you perceive it, B’Ernie, then that’s how you perceive it. Someone else might think my answer was yes.
Maybe you speak French. The question was do you proclaim yourself to be fully incorporated. Your answer was it’s up to God.
No, I said it’s ultimately for God to judge. That’s a statement about God’s answer, not my answer.
SDG, you answered clearly. Ignore the fool.
I also said that I am well content with such assurance as I have of God’s friendship and the sojourning of the Holy Spirit in my soul, which is another way of saying that my answer is yes.
I said it’s ultimately for God to judge. That’s a statement about God’s answer, not my answer.
If you said it, then it’s your answer. Unless of course, you think you speak for God.
My soul I am content for God to judge. This exchange I am content for readers to judge. Thanks for playing, B’Ernie.
I content that you are playing.
With you, B’Ernie, I can do little else. I cannot hear what you say for the thunder of what you are.
The LORD thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded.
Now ignoring our troll.
Back to Jay D:
Well, um, okay. You’re right, I do need a better answer.
And actually saying what qualifies as full incorporation into the society of the Church — or what disqualifies one — can be a bit tricky and involved. Will you permit me to beg off, at least for tonight, with a second-order answer predicated on the question: Do you act as the Catholic Church’s teaching authority calls for her children to act? Do you even think of yourself as obliged to do so?
For instance, do you worship each week in the Sunday Eucharistic liturgy of the Church, presided by an ordained priest, under a bishop succeeding to the apostles, in recognized communion with the successor to St. Peter?
Do you receive the Lord whole and entire in the blessed sacrament at such a Catholic liturgy (again, valid bishop, valid priest, communion with Peter) at least once a year during Easter season? Do you confess your mortal sins to such a priest at least once a year to receive absolution?
If not, you are at any rate not following the Catholic Church’s precepts for her children. And if you don’t think of yourself as obliged to do these things, then you don’t think of yourself as fully incorporated into the Catholic Church in the relevant sense.
Now, what is required to rectify this situation and why is a little more involved. If you had been baptized Catholic but left to join the Lutheran church, it would be a simple matter of going back to confession and then resuming normal Catholic life. If, however, you were baptized in a Lutheran church and raised Lutheran, the Church would require you to be received as a full member.
Again, I realize that’s not a complete answer, but I hope it serves to move the discussion forward at least a bit.
SDG or Jay D,
how was someone received into the Catholic Church in the years before Jay D believes she was no longer the catholic Church? I should think it’s very similar the current practice in the Catholic Church, correct me if I’m wrong. I’m pretty sure it was more involved than “praying Jesus into your heart”, or simply declaring membership.
Jay D,
when do you think the Catholic Church ceased to be the catholic Church worthy of the title? Can you show in the historical record where it ceased to teach what the apostles taught? Where the Catholic Church differs from the Augsburg Confession, can you show any evidence that those differences where formerly present in the Catholic Church at some time prior to losing it’s catholicity? If the Catholic Church ceased to teach what the apostles taught, how is it that Luther was able to rediscover it? How do you know which flavor of Lutheranism is the true Gospel? Of the 30,000 or so other denominations and subdenominations of the protestant movement, each teaching some different gospel, which ones are catholic? Surely they all can’t be? They certainly don’t subscribe to the Augsburg Confession.
God Bless,
Matt
God Bless,
Matt
SDG: If not, you are at any rate not following the Catholic Church’s precepts for her children. And if you don’t think of yourself as obliged to do these things,
I do not do those things you describe and do not think of myself as obligated to do so.
then you don’t think of yourself as fully incorporated into the Catholic Church in the relevant sense.
How does this follow? I do not think of myself as obligated to do those things for membership in the Catholic Church. Why would not doing them lead me to think of myself as not fully incorporated?
Matt,
The statement “doesn’t always act in line with his alleged faith” includes abortion, adultery, etc. We all know Teddy Kennedy’s sins; there’s no point in belaboring them. I was trying to be charitable. Maybe you should try it yourself sometime.
Alright, slightly off the new conversation… but when the heck did it become the hammer of choice to tell folks they’re not charitable? Isn’t it kind of, well, uncharitable to assume that someone *didn’t* think of something in the best possible light– and still decide it’s unacceptable?
Not that it’s always off target, but is this some kind of new fad? Social liberals have “tolerance” to paint folks with, and the folks we disagree with are called uncharitable?
Where the Catholic Church differs from the Augsburg Confession, can you show any evidence that those differences where formerly present in the Catholic Church at some time prior to losing it’s catholicity?
I don’t have to show that. A Church that claims the name catholic is claiming to be the universal Church. If the unadulterated gospel is at least tolerated within the doctrine of a Church, I would consider that Church catholic. If a person can hold the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession within the Church, that Church is catholic.
If you want me to point to a spot in history where such an event happened, my opinion is that it happened at the council of Trent. A plain interpretation of that council appears to make the unadulterated gospel as expressed in the Augsburg Confession unwelcome within the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Jay D, you’re saying that the Church traditionally and historically known as the Catholic Church isn’t.
Therefore, it’s on you to show where they changed. The burden of proof is on the challenger, after all.
Heh, sorry– updating browsers. I’m Foxfier and Headnoises, both. No actual attempt at hanky-panky intended!
Then as now, the most common way was to be baptized within the Church, usually by a priest or bishop. Those who received Trinitarian baptism from schismatics and heretics were judged by the early Church to be validly baptized, but were subject to a subsequent reception into communion with the Catholic Church.
Because the universal Savior, in entrusting the governance of His universal church to the apostles and their successors together with Peter and his successors, gave the final authority in matters of faith and practice (binding and loosing), not to you, but to those who sit in the place of the apostles, to the teaching authority of the universal Church. You may not consider yourself obliged to do these things; the Catholic Church says otherwise. You disagree with the Catholic Church and stand outside her pedagogy and inner life. That is why, though linked to her through your baptism, you are not fully incorporated into her.
SDG: You may not consider yourself obliged to do these things; the Catholic Church says otherwise. You disagree with the Catholic Church and stand outside her pedagogy and inner life. That is why, though linked to her through your baptism, you are not fully incorporated into her.
Got it. I am a qualified non-member of the Catholic Church because I do not do certain actions and do not think myself obligated to do so. This fact is judged (by SDG at the very least) to be an indication that I “disagree with the Catholic Church and stand outside her pedagogy and inner life”.
Apparently; being in a state of “disagreement with the Catholic Church and standing outside her pedagogy and inner life” by virtue of not doing certain things and not thinking you are obligated to do them makes you a qualified non-member of the Catholic Church.
Now I know. I think I’ll write that down for the next time some one asks “are you Catholic?”.
“Apparently not”, I would begin…
Got it. I am a qualified non-member of the Catholic Church because I do not do certain actions and do not think myself obligated to do so.
Exactly. You’re not a member because you don’t fit the membership requirements; I’m not a boy scout because I’m not a boy, I never joined, and I have no desire to follow their rules nor do I see why I should.
Foxflier: Exactly. You’re not a member because you don’t fit the membership requirements; I’m not a boy scout because I’m not a boy, I never joined, and I have no desire to follow their rules nor do I see why I should.
That’s fine as long as we are all on the same page. If someone asks, “why aren’t you Catholic?” the answer is “I apparently don’t fit the membership requirements”.
Jay D- You object?
You *can* change to fit, after all– Jesus did ask us to change to fit him, y’know.
The definition of “Catholic” for the church itself has always been
One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic
With so many factions of the church with each Bishop now doing as they please, the church itself is having a hard time calling itself “Catholic” after the liberalizations and changes of these past 40 years
Please pray for a full restoration of the Catholic church, so that she is once again ONE, where each mass is performed in the Traditional or TLM with NO innovations and implementations of native customs into the mass which is so commonplace now, where she is HOLY where bad priests are immediately defrocked, where she is “Catholic” , the One True Church established by Christ by which there are no other means of salvation, and Apostolic, where she no longer teaches that all faiths are good (like JPII and Mother Teresa have taught) and tries to CONVERT those non believers as the early apostles did rather than encourage them to continue on their ways of error
Foxflier: Jay D- You object?
You *can* change to fit, after all– Jesus did ask us to change to fit him, y’know.
Why would I do that? I already stated, “I do not do certain actions and do not think myself obligated to do so“.
Jay D- you aren’t obligated to do so. You’ve been given the choice. That’s the blessing of free will.
Still doesn’t mean you’re a Catholic just ‘cus you want to be.
Um. Not exactly. By that description, you could be a bad Catholic, rather than a non-Catholic.
What seems to be clear is that you don’t “accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her,” in the words of Lumen Gentium, and therefore that you are not “fully incorporated in the society of the Church.” From this fact alone, though, we can’t necessarily say whether you are a bad Catholic or a non-Catholic.
Until now I’ve assumed that you are a non-Catholic rather than a bad Catholic, but in principle I could be wrong about that. For instance, if you were baptized in a Catholic church, the fact that you now attend a Lutheran church and think of yourself as a Lutheran doesn’t necessarily mean that you are no longer Catholic. It could mean that you are still Catholic, but a bad Catholic.
Whether someone who is not “fully incorporated into the society of the Church” is a bad Catholic or a non-Catholic would depend on the third criterion, being “united with her as part of her visible bodily structure.”
In some cases, this union or the absence thereof is easy to identify. For example, someone who was baptized and raised in the Catholic Church, and who has not defected from the Church, is clearly a Catholic. Examples of someone who is clearly a non-Catholic would include individuals who have not been baptized and individuals who have formally defected from the Catholic Church.
To the latter list I think can be added those who were baptized and raised in a non-Catholic church and who have never been incorporated into the public life and worship of the Catholic Church. I hope this is adequate in a rough and ready way, though of course a canonist could do a much better job here.
Am I doing any better?
I am baptized, but it didn’t happen in a Catholic Church building (nor by a Catholic Church priest).
Foxflier: Jay D- you aren’t obligated to do so. You’ve been given the choice. That’s the blessing of free will.
Wonderful!… Wait, what?
Still doesn’t mean you’re a Catholic just ‘cus you want to be.
No, it doesn’t. It means I’m not Catholic because I don’t do them and don’t think I’m obligated to–and not baptized Catholic. (according to SDG.)
Then I’m thinking it’s likely that you’re a non-Catholic, rather than a bad Catholic. Either way, though, you aren’t fully incorporated into the society of the Church.
Again, not exactly (I think you are trying to give a precise reading to what I think was clearly meant as broad preliminary thinking). The “not doing them and not thinking you’re obligated to” goes more to “not accepting the system and means of salvation” given to the Church than to the “not being united with her as part of her visible bodily structure.”
Not being baptized in the Catholic church does go to the lack of visible union, but this obstacle to full unity can be overcome. Again, the universal Savior has made the teaching authority of the universal Church, not you, the final arbiter with the power to bind and loose, to oblige or to forbid.
Jesus Christ through his bishops and his chief steward call you to full visible unity with the Catholic Church. You are obliged, and you can answer the call.
It means I’m not Catholic because I don’t do them and don’t think I’m obligated to–and not baptized Catholic. (according to SDG.)
Actually, it doesn’t logically follow that because you have free will, you don’t do them, don’t think you’re obligated to and not babtized Catholic.
You may as well insist that you’re Australian because you want to call yourself that; you could become Australian, but there are actual standards that you’d have to meet to be so.
Imagine you are a practicing pagan, who decides that he wants to call himself “Christian,” yet not change any religious actions. If you don’t believe in Christ and follow some basic beliefs, you’re still not Christian.
Do the metaphors make it easier?
SDG: Jesus Christ through his bishops and his chief steward call you to full visible unity with the Catholic Church. You are obliged, and you can answer the call.
You are making it hard for me to understand what it is about me that makes me in disunity with the Catholic Church to begin with. Just when I thought I had it figured out.
The “not doing them and not thinking you’re obligated to” goes more to “not accepting the system and means of salvation” given to the Church than to the “not being united with her as part of her visible bodily structure.”
What does go more towards my “not being united with her as part of her visible bodily structure”?
Wow, that’s just crazy that my wife would think people talking about TK being a demon of hell thinking they weren’t talking charitably. *sigh*
Jay, SDG and others are much better than I am as this sort of discussion, so I don’t usually venture in. But I wondered about this comment of yours:
I do not do those things you describe and do not think of myself as obligated to do so (emphasis mine)
Are you the one who defines what you are obligated to believe? If not, who or what defines what to believe. I don’t even like the work obligation, but will leave that for another time.
Jay, once upon a time, I played these games myself. I thought, hey, the Catholics aren’t so bad, I’ll say that they also have a right to the catholic name just like the Lutherans, and anyone else who even remotely says they follow Christ. After all, who can say who is right or wrong?
Until it struck me – if the Catholics and myself were of the same catholic Church, why would I not say I was one of them or vice versa? Why did I say I was Lutheran while somehow being the same? Why did I say I was not them, but I was them? It makes no logical sense. You can’t separate yourself from the body of Christ and still be a member of it at the same time.
It was like Lewis said in Mere Christianity. At a certain point you have to lay down your arms and surrender your rebellion. I just took it the logical step further than Lewis. If he saw what the Church of England has become, I think he’d likely be looking harder at the same, despite the prejudices from his upbringing in Ireland.
“work obligation” should be “word obligation”
Mary Kay: Are you the one who defines what you are obligated to believe?
I’ve been reading “obliged” wrong this whole time! That is, SDG had originally asked if I “even think of yourself as obliged to [act as the Catholic Church’s teaching authority calls for her children to act]”
Anyway the words are close.
What is your question? Am I the one who defines what I am obligated/obliged to believe–for what?
I am not the one who defines what I am or am not obliged to do or believe (if anything) to be a member of the Catholic Church®, which is what we are talking about.
To be united with the Catholic Church as part of her visible bodily structure requires a formal act of becoming a member — otherwise, it wouldn’t be visible/bodily/structural, would it?
To be baptized as a Catholic is one way. Another way, which was my way, is to be formally received into the Catholic Church after having been baptized within a communion of separated brethren and raised in the faith apart from the visible structures of the Church and away from the full means of salvation.
Until it struck me – if the Catholics and myself were of the same catholic Church, why would I not say I was one of them or vice versa? Why did I say I was Lutheran while somehow being the same?
“A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.”
That is how you determine if any particular person is Lutheran. There is nothing in that that says that person cannot be also Catholic.
What I am trying to determine, what it is that makes me, a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord, a qualified non-member of the Catholic Church.
What makes you a non-member of the Catholic Church is the fact that you have never been integrated into her visible bodily structure by a formal act.
There may also be an impediment around not accepting her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her.
Jay, sounds like something clarified in your discussion with SDG and I’m glad but have to admit that whatever it was whizzed past me.
I am not the one who defines what I am or am not obliged to do or believe (if anything) to be a member of the Catholic Church®, which is what we are talking about
Actually, I wasn’t thinking so much of who defines beliefs for members of the Catholic Church (the trademark symbol gave me a smile). My question was more by what criteria do you decide what you believe. For example, on what basis you determine if a papal bull is valid or invalid. (I was thinking of your comment that “Luther burned the papal bull because it was invalid.”) Or that Luther’s actions were valid or invalid.
That’s probably not saying it well and it may be a retread of an earlier post that I missed, but that’s what I always go back to.
Jay, you answered my question while I fumbling about composing my post.
If you want to be honest, these days a Lutheran is someone who claims to be Lutheran and that’s all it means. Most Lutherans are born in a family that calls itself a member of a Lutheran church, and therefore call themselves Lutheran. Whatever lip service any Lutheran denomination may or may not give to the Book of Concord is entirely optional these days, as is not violating the Bible by having gay sex even as a minister.
What authority in the Lutheran church says you have to believe in the Book of Concord? Who has the authority to make these decisions for people in, and outside, as you said, of the Lutheran church? It sounds like someone is presuming to have the authority to dictate to others what’s God’s will, so who is this person, and how can you tell this authority is valid?
The universal (which is what catholic means) Church that Christ founded has answers to these questions. I never saw one in the Lutheran church that made a lick of sense to me, but mostly they lacked any answer to these questions. I rather suspect that’s because the Lutheran church has to resort to relativism to justify its own existence separated from the Catholic Church. In doing so it has poisoned much of the Christian world with relativism and is quickly becoming obsolete and shrinking, having delivered its spores.
To be united with the Catholic Church as part of her visible bodily structure requires a formal act of becoming a member — otherwise, it wouldn’t be visible/bodily/structural, would it?
Thank you SDG. If anyone asks why I am not a Catholic I can say:
“I was neither baptized Catholic nor formally received into the Catholic Church after ‘having been baptized within a communion of separated brethren and raised in the faith apart from the visible structures of the Church and away from the full means of salvation’.”
I’m not Catholic because I’m not Catholic. Whatever life experiences brought about these events, I am not Catholic because I was not baptized Catholic or formally received into the Catholic Church. That is taking a while to sink in. I’m not sure how to respond.
How about, “Why haven’t I been formally received yet? You can formally receive me any time now. I wouldn’t mind. What are you wating for? IS ANYBODY OUT THERE?”
In the meantime, I won’t hold my breath about being formally received. It is not actually true that my faith is apart from the means of salvation.
This thread is quite amusing with Lutherans just calling themselves Catholic and anyone on a whim just attending the Catholic church without ever having been brought up or catechised, as many of my coworkers who married Catholics, receive communion, but never have been catechised or seen the inside of a confessional in their lifetime. Talking about specific papal bulls and books is kind of funny when you dont even know your basic catechism. Possibly with all of the ecumania craze of the JPII years, any one can be catholic by his definition, but tell that to those who died for the faith, the true faith
Lets see, from my handy dandy Baltimore Catechism (1917):
Has the church any marks by which it may be known?
The church has four marks by which it may be known; it is ONE, it is HOLY, it is CATHOLIC and it is APOSTOLIC,
How is the Church Catholic?
The Church is Catholic or UNIVERSAL because it subsists in all ages, teaches all nations and contains ALL truths
How is the Church ONE?
The church is ONE because all its members agree in ONE faith, and all are in ONE communion, and all under one head
How is the Church Apostolic?
The church is Apostolic because it was founded by Christ on His Apostles,and is governed by their lawful successors, and because it has never ceased, and will never cease to teach their doctrine
How is the church Holy?
The church is Holy because its founder Jesus Christ is holy;because it teaches a holy doctrine, invites all to a holy life and because of the eminent holiness of so many thousands of its children
SDG: What makes you a non-member of the Catholic Church is the fact that you have never been integrated into her visible bodily structure by a formal act.
A “Universal” private club seems in no way ironic to you?
So, Jay, is everyone a Catholic, then?
And if so, does “Catholic” have any meaning?
Whatever life experiences brought about these events, I am not Catholic because I was not baptized Catholic or formally received into the Catholic Church.
Yes, agreed to this point.
Why haven’t I been formally received yet? You can formally receive me any time now. I wouldn’t mind. What are you wating for? IS ANYBODY OUT THERE?”
Weeellll, now we come to it. I looked at the Lutheran site and however one describes what Luther did in response to what he considered “false and misleading teachings,” there’s a discontinuity. How do you account for that discontinuity and such disparate views today?
Initially I was going to respond to your comment that There is nothing in that that says that person cannot be also Catholic.
I’m not familiar with the Book of Concord so I don’t know if it reflects the early views which were closer to Catholic doctrine than the later views.
But I do know that there are currently some topics that are not both/and.
Because I don’t know your beliefs or even what beliefs the Lutheran (faith/tradition/fill in the blank) teaches, what is your view when I mention
the communion of saints
the Real Presence of the Eucharist
apostolic succession and papal/magisterial authority
the role of Mary
the role of the priest in Confession
the role of the priest in Communion
Those are areas which I would guess are at variance with Catholic teaching and the variance is the reason for not being formally received.
Will keep your thinking this out in prayer.
Mary Kay Because I don’t know your beliefs or even what beliefs the Lutheran (faith/tradition/fill in the blank) teaches, what is your view when I mention
the communion of saints
the Real Presence of the Eucharist
apostolic succession and papal/magisterial authority
the role of Mary
the role of the priest in Confession
the role of the priest in Communion
Woah! Slow down! Where did all these questions come from? SDG said I am not Catholic because:
SDG: To be united with the Catholic Church as part of her visible bodily structure requires a formal act of becoming a member — otherwise, it wouldn’t be visible/bodily/structural, would it?
To be baptized as a Catholic is one way. Another way, which was my way, is to be formally received into the Catholic Church after having been baptized within a communion of separated brethren and raised in the faith apart from the visible structures of the Church and away from the full means of salvation.
I am not Catholic because I have not been “formally received into the Catholic Church”. I said fine, formally receive me.
You will have to explain how such things as my view on the “role of Mary” have to do with my membership in the Catholic Church, because, so far, SDG hasn’t mentioned anything like that.
Tim J.: So, Jay, is everyone a Catholic, then?
Apparently not. I am apparently not Catholic.
And if so, does “Catholic” have any meaning?
That is what I am trying to find out. So far, I have learned from SDG that being Catholic means:
“What makes you a non-member of the Catholic Church is the fact that you have never been integrated into her visible bodily structure by a formal act.”
SDG, it is as though you insist that everyone concede your major premise before beginning to discuss. Can’t there be some neutral term like “Roman See” that you wouldn’t find offensive? “Christian” started out as a term intended to be offensive. . .
The Church of England was no more a new church than was the Church of Spain or the Church of France, both of which were also essentially autokephalos under the control of the local kings. It was submission to the Crown of Aragon and Castille and their attempt to use the Bishop of Rome to gain the territory of England for themselves that led to Henry making open and official what other nationalities were already doing.
Theresa, the Protestants always read the Fathers. That and Scripture are why they found innovations in the Roman See and subsidiaries to be out of line – including the Petrine claims – as did the Orthodox.
Now there are spurious works like the Donation of Constantine, and a number of letters allegedly by early church figures the provenance of which is uncertain at best, was that what you were thinking of?
Neither the Evangelical Movement of the Augsburg Confession, nor the Reformers nor the Church of England thought of themselves as non-Catholic.
Mark, your post of 10 on Sept 3 contains a number of historical inaccuracies – just ask the other ancient Holy, Catholic and Apostolic patriarchies. Or even just ask St. Catherine of Sienna, to whom Mary appeared and informed her that she wasn’t immaculately conceived. . .
SDG, Isaiah 8.
It is those exclusivist claims tied to the name demanded, along with the harsh and false attacks on others that I doubt Rome would countenance, that are the problem, as it means using the term THE Catholic Church means accepting the major premise, without proof, as the major premise, at the beginning of the discussion.
Jay, quite so. My pastor still maintains that the rest of Catholicism will come round and join us. Whether that means B16 would need to move to Creve Couer or not is unclear. 😉
Therea, no, Luther did not leave the Catholic Church. Leo the Simoniac and his execrable bulla Exurge Domine split the Western Church.
Now do you see the problem?
And we aren’t Lutherans, we are of the Evangelical Movement of the Augsburg Confession of the Catholic Church. Please use our proper name. 😉
SDG, but without a Bishop of Libya to lead us, which church is THE Catholic church is a matter of dispute.
I’m saying these things not to start a fight, but to point out the problems in the sectarian declaration of the new rule which renders this site no longer an apologetic outreach, unless revoked or suitably modified. Obviously the rudeness is undesirable, but I find that on both sides.
SDG, but that continuum that you refer to exists in both East and West, and they mutually excommunicated each other in 1054, making the claim either sectarian or incoherent, today.
Wow, only 1/3 of the way down the thread. But I suspect that there are no new arguments, are there? And surely I’ve made, if not over-made my case that demanding acquiescence to a major premise in dispute at the beginning, is improper.
Simple, Jay. To be joined fully in that way, you’ll be professing agreement and obedience to Catholic authority. If you can’t do that, you can’t in good conscience join. If you can, I’d call your local parish and tell them you’d like to get into RCIA right now and learn more about the Church’s teachings so you can join this Easter or Pentecost. I hope you will, as going through RCIA may help you discover more about the catholic teachings we are called to.
Speaking of which, that’s how the Church is universal. Not that everyone automatically is a member even against their will, but rather that everyone is universally called to the truth contained in this universal, or catholic Church. I’m sure you’d already say all are called to follow Christ, we’re agreeing and saying that since He said to do this was to follow His Church, we should obey. The first step is to disassociate from membership in schismatic groups, lay down our arms, and come to His Church asking for their guidance.
Labrialumn: Sorry, but I have to call BS on that one. My wife and I were both Lutheran and we never once referred to our faith as anything other than that or Christian once. Don’t try to make it out to be some sort of slur, which Romanist IS.
Also, please read my posts here about how leaving the Lutheran Church was the only sane thing someone who really wants to follow Christ could do. It looks like you could use that advice as well as Jay.
Jarnor23: To be joined fully in that way, you’ll be professing agreement and obedience to Catholic authority.
This is new to me, too. You are saying I’m not a full member of the Catholic Church because I don’t “profess agreement and obedience to the Catholic authority”.
SDC said: What makes you a non-member of the Catholic Church is the fact that you have never been integrated into her visible bodily structure by a formal act.
Someone help me sort this out!
Luther “not leaving” the Church is kind of like a child “not leaving” his family by refusing to get in the car when the rest of the family is continuing on to the correct destination. The difference is that the Church warned Luther rather than stuffing his stubborn butt in the back seat. It’s sad that his thinking he was already at the perfect destination has actually lead to a lot of the family being in the wrong place and actually traveling to worse places all the time.
Mary Kay wrote:
“the communion of saints
the Real Presence of the Eucharist
apostolic succession and papal/magisterial authority
the role of Mary
the role of the priest in Confession
the role of the priest in Communion”
We believe in all of these as taught by the Unified Catholic and Orthodox Church prior to the Great Schism.
That is what it means to be “Lutheran”: Evangelical Catholic, not Protestant. Lutheran being your name for us, not our name for ourselves (thouigh we’ve accepted it for sake of clarity) just as Roman is everyone else’s name for you, as you are based there, are the sole surviving element of Roman imperial civil authority in the West (post Romulus Augustalus), and sentiment towards re-establishing that empire being common in your ranks.
The Confutation of the Augsburg Confession would be an excellent summary of the agreements and differences. It is a document under the authority of the bishop who resides on the vatican hill (and a great guy!), so it should be acceptable to you.
However, I believe that this is off-topic, and that the topic was whether it was suitable to require acceptance as the major premise, the very thing that is in dispute, on an apologetic, outreach site, of anyone engaged in discussion.
SDG, the Roman Magisterium teaches that we -are- Catholics, albeit imperfectly, but we -are- included in the Church, and thus salvation. To deny that would be for you to become a ‘protestant’ and a Feenyite heretic. . .
No, Jay, you either are misunderstanding or purposefully being obstinate. You just need to be formally received, as was said. However TO be received, you’ll be asked to prove you actually ARE wanting to be a part of our catholic faith. If you refuse to obey, you do what you’ve always chosen to do – keep yourself separate from the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
Jarnor, I take it you weren’t Missouri, then. I’m not giving you bovine end product, but what I’ve been taught, and have observed. Are you confusing Elca with the Evangelical Movement of the Augsburg Confession of the Catholic Church? It lacks doctrinal unity with the Undivided Church in nearly every way.
Jay, then Cardinal Mahoney isn’t Catholic. . .
Jarnor, “kicked out” is not identical with “leave”
Actually, Libria, I have never seen anything saying you’re Catholics. I’ve seen it that you’re imperfectly tied to the Church, but I’ve never seen an authentic document from the Magisterium saying you’re Catholic. Please show proof for this.
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, while not infallible, certainly doesn’t use that term, here’s what they say.
“In doctrine official Lutheranism is part of what is called orthodox Protestantism, since it agrees with the Catholic and the Greek Churches in accepting the authority of the Scriptures and of the three most ancient creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed).”
Woah! Slow down! Whoops, sorry.
Yes, to what both Jarnor and SDG said. The Catholic Church has the fullness of revealed truth. The other Christian groups have some but not the fullness. That’s what Jarnor is saying, that a person who is received into the Catholic Church assents to the fullness of revealed truth in Catholic teaching. SDG’s point is the Catholic Church recognizes a baptism using a Trinitarian formula (in the name of the Father and Son and Spirit) and that he was previously baptized when received into the Catholic Church.
My list was that which Catholics assent to but “separated brethren,” Protestants, name du jour, do not assent to.
Heh, this is how “catholic” the Lutherans are, look at the huge differences between the Missouri synod and the ELCA.
BTW, do you guys really believe that the truth of Christ and the correct traditions just suddenly showed up in Missouri in 1847? At least, I haven’t heard that Jesus showed up and said that this group has it right around then. Even other Lutherans have a hard time believing that somehow you guys have it right and they do not. The problem is mainly that where does this authority come from? Some German immigrants picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to use? Or, to be even more generous than need be, saying that Luther had this right?
At least the Catholic Church has a claim to authority. If you deny this claim, it’s to your own detriment, as this authority comes from Jesus. I’d rather seriously examine such a claim rather than just assume some Missouri yahoos are correct about it.
Libria: Exactly! The Church said “these are Christ’s teachings, come with us”, Luther said he wanted his way. The Church said “if you want to be a part of this family, you must come along, or no longer call yourself one of us until you do”. Luther refused, he left. Excommunication is ONLY until the party repents and comes back, but being a Lutheran you probably didn’t know that.
You proved my point. Thanks.
Jarnor23: No, Jay, you either are misunderstanding or purposefully being obstinate. You just need to be formally received, as was said. However TO be received, you’ll be asked to prove you actually ARE wanting to be a part of our catholic faith.
I am not Catholic because I haven’t been formally received. I haven’t been formally received because… as part of the formal reception process I would be asked to prove I actually am wanting to be part of your catholic faith… and… what? It is pre-assumed that any proof I submit would be insufficient?
I’m going with obstinate for now. I have to run, hopefully someone else can clarify.
Not exactly obstinate, but it is like pulling teeth to get someone to tell me what it is that makes me non-Catholic.
Not exactly obstinate, but it is like pulling teeth to get someone to tell me what it is that makes me non-Catholic.
To the contrary, you’ve been given an explanation from several people.
Jay D: Not exactly obstinate, but it is like pulling teeth to get someone to tell me what it is that makes me non-Catholic.
Mary Kay: To the contrary, you’ve been given an explanation from several people.
Yes, I think I’m almost there.
“I am not Catholic because I haven’t been formally received by the Catholic Church.” I think is the final word, which naturally brings up the next question. “Why haven’t I been formally received?”
The Catholic Church can formally receive me anytime now. I don’t mind. There must be a reason it hasn’t yet.
You are saying that reason is I haven’t “assented to the fullness of revealed truth in Catholic teaching”.
The Catholic Church knows I haven’t assented to such a thing, so it hasn’t received me. Fair enough.
Steve DG,
Was Karl Rahner a member of the “Catholic Church”? In your opinion, are Notre Dame and Georgetown Catholic?
So far as I know, neither John Paul the Great or Benedict the Almost as Great demanded that ND or Georgetown stop calling themselves Catholic.
If Rowan Williams was not a member of a church, then why did John Paul 2 give him a pectoral cross?
Whoa, look at this mess. I go away for a few hours to a screening and look what you kids get into.
Okay, just a few quick replies for now:
Um, okay. Glad we could clear that up, Jay D. Perhaps someday we can address those impediments and you may yet be received into the Church. :‑)
Of course you would have to actively agree — it’s not a unilateral thing. There are sacraments of initiation, that sort of thing. And since you would be accepting the whole binding-loosing thing, there would be the precepts of the Church to follow, such as weekly Sunday Mass, etc. It’s not as simple as saying that you agree with some stuff in a book.
Not at all. I used to be a Protestant — I was married in a Presbyterian church — and look at me. It’s not really a question of “proving” anything — if you say you believe all that the Church teaches and want to be formally accepted, the Church will accept you at your word.
Ask Jesus, the universal Savior of all — who believe. It was his idea.
As should be clear by now, Jeb, there are several questions here. Two of the most relevant: Was Rahner united with the Church as part of her visible bodily structure? Certainly. Did he accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her? From my very hazy impressions of Rahner, I would tend to doubt it. That might raise questions about whether he was truly fully incorporated into the life and society of the Church. However, it seems clear that he would be a bad Catholic, not a non-Catholic. Clear?
As for Notre Dame and Georgetown, I have my hands full talking about what makes a person Catholic or otherwise. Human institutions (which can only be “Catholic” or not by analogy, and in a way not directly dealt with by the theology presently under consideration) are not part of my present brief.
Perhaps someday one of us will be in a position to ask one of them. Until then, I don’t know and I don’t think it bears directly on the questions at hand, which you may have noticed have to do with Catholic teaching.
Um, that’s not my general modus operandi, not at all. I’m not even 100 percent sure what you’re talking about. Jay D has been very assiduously seeking after a clarification of Catholic teaching, and I’ve been doing my best to clarify what the Church’s teaching is. I don’t think I’ve insisted that anyone agree with anything before beginning to discuss anything.
I’m fine with that, but it isn’t going to fly very well a long discussion. Are you going to translate “Catholics” as “adherents to the Roman See”? “Catholicism” as “the profession of the Roman See”? Clunkiness kills.
I’m content to let the Thomas Howard quote given above speak for itself on this point.
That is a remarkable mouthful that Google has indexed throughout the entire World Wide Web on exactly, um, one (1) page… on the “Mere Comments” blog… in a combox. (With this current combox mention, its representation has been doubled… oops, tripled, since I quoted you.)
Somehow I don’t feel this usage has quite caught on in a definitive way just yet. Perhaps the clunkiness is the reason (see above). However, I would be happy to call you whatever you are listed in the phone book as. Let me know.
You can call it “sectarian” if you like, but I make no apologies for the teaching of Vatican II.
I am quite safe from any charge of Feeneyism, as even a casual perusal of most posts in even this one thread can quite easily establish. I have already repeatedly affirmed that in the idiom of the Church you are linked to the Catholic Church in a way that falls short of full incorporation — but this is not the same as saying that you are “Catholics, albeit imperfectly.” This idiom will not, I think, find any purchase in the established teaching of the Church. If you feel that the Magisterium teaches otherwise, you are free to produce evidence.
“I am not Catholic because I have not been “formally received into the Catholic Church”. I said fine, formally receive me.”
You are playing games, now.
The above statement is like pretending not to understand what makes a person “married”.
If you really want to be married, you take the vows, and to validly take the vows, you have to MEAN them. You can’t just say “Well, that’s fine if you want to get married, honey… go ahead, YOU take the vows, I’m not stopping you”.
Someone mentioned the Boy Scouts earlier.
To be a Boy Scout, you (among other things) register, pay your dues, take the Scout Oath, wear the uniform, and you follow the rules – which MEANS placing yourself under the authority of your Scoutmaster and your local Scout council. These are all aspects of the formal act that unites a person to the Boy Scouts. All together, these things are called “joining the Boy Scouts”.
You seem to be DEMANDING to know whether it is EXCLUSIVELY registration, paying dues, wearing the uniform, taking the oath or some other detail that really, truly, for sure makes a kid an *official* Boy Scout, when “joining the Boy Scouts” is all those things together (and more). You may be an amazing hiker, you may know more knots that Baden Powell, you might ALWAYS “be prepared”, but if you don’t march down to the Scout Troop and JOIN, you are not a “Boy Scout”… not even if you feel you are more a scout “in spirit” than all the other boys combined.
The ball is in YOUR court.
If you are all that hot to be received into the Church, why, get thee to your local parish and tell the priest. I’m sure he’d be glad to get you started in RCIA classes. We don’t have a uniform, but I’m sure you’ll learn the secret Catholic handshake within a few weeks.
Tim J– Thank you!
I tried rephrasing as many ways as I could, but I think you’re more concise.
Tim J. You may be an amazing hiker, you may know more knots that Baden Powell, you might ALWAYS “be prepared”, but if you don’t march down to the Scout Troop and JOIN, you are not a “Boy Scout”… not even if you feel you are more a scout “in spirit” than all the other boys combined.
That’s fine for the Boy Scouts, but what about an organization that calls itself the Universal Scouting Organization? I would happen to think that the scope of the Universal Scouting Organization would pretty much have to encompass all boys that are scouts “in spirit”. It is the Universal Scouting Organization. In its nature, it encompasses “scouting” in a universal way. If there were boys that were scouts “in spirit” that were not included within the sphere of the Universal Scouting Organization, that organization would hardly be “universal”.
If I were an amazing hiker and whatnot, I would indeed cry out into the air “You can receive me into your Universal Scouting Organization any time now. I’m a scout. Hello! Hello! I know more knots than Baden Powel for crying out loud! If you exclude me how can you be universal?”
Unless God authorized them to speak for all Scouts and to bind and loose on matters Scouting. (( No pun intended. ))
It’s a pretty serious claim the Catholic Church makes – that it’s the universal Church established by Jesus Christ Himself. It takes an equally serious look into for a Christian who wants to truly follow Christ’s call.
Jay D– a more accurate version would be if the Boy Scouts were called Universal Scout Troup, and a group of folks who didn’t like the requirements decided to make their own group– call it Scouterites.
The Scouterites call themselves this for a long time, then suddenly decide that– despite having left UST, they want to be called Universal Scout Troup, too. But still won’t follow the existing rules, they just want to take the name.
Matt said: Where the Catholic Church differs from the Augsburg Confession, can you show any evidence that those differences where formerly present in the Catholic Church at some time prior to losing it’s catholicity?
Jay said:
I don’t have to show that. A Church that claims the name catholic is claiming to be the universal Church.
exactly. Only one Church does so with the authentic history to prove it.
If the unadulterated gospel is at least tolerated within the doctrine of a Church, I would consider that Church catholic.
Excellent, and the Catholic Church not only tolerates the unadulterated Gospel, but requires it (something few denominations do). So, unless you’re asserting that the Catholic Church teaches contrary to the Gospel which in reasoned discourse you would be obliged to demonstrate, you must at least conced e that the Catholic Church is catholic in your understanding of the word. Thanks.
If a person can hold the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession within the Church, that Church is catholic.
Wait, but what if the Augsburg definition distorts the unadulterated Gospel? Isn’t that uncatholic? What authority does the Augsburg Confession hold? Who convened it and who sanctioned it? Is it like the Council of Nicea? Where the bishops debated and declared, and then was sealed by the Pope?
If you want me to point to a spot in history where such an event happened, my opinion is that it happened at the council of Trent.
So you’re saying that Luther broke with a Church which was the catholic Church, and then later it broke with itself? Surely you must believe the Catholic Church was off the rails before that? Can you tell me which canon(s) of the Council of Trent (which by the way was convened and operated much like the Council of Nicea, and nothing like the Augsburg Confession) marked a sudden break from the doctrine expressed prior too it.
A plain interpretation of that council appears to make the unadulterated gospel as expressed in the Augsburg Confession unwelcome within the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Please cite the canon(s) which opposes the Gospel.
Thanks,
Matt
ps. are you going to answer my question about which Lutheren flavor(s) are still expressing the unadulterated Gospel?
The scandal of Christianity is precisely the scandal of particularity.
Jesus is both one particular individual human being from a particular individual cultural and historical context (no fair — others cannot “relate”!) and also the universal divine Savior of the entire human race. The creator of the universe asks us to go out into all the world and proclaim a first-century Palestinian peasant as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, even to men who live in places where no one has ever seen a lamb.
And this first-century Palestinian peasant who is also the universal Savior founded a particular individual historical society — not just a Movement of Like-Minded Hearts, like “The Collective of All True Lovers of Scouting” that you get to be a part of automatically just by being the Right Sort, or by considering yourself to be a member in the privacy of your own mind while being free to trot on down to your local Unaffiliated Free Troop which was founded last year by someone who was also the Right Sort and which holds fast to the Universal Principles of Scouting, so it is all right. No, the universal Savior founded an actual, specific society, as concrete and individual as the chosen nation of Israel, but at the same time as universal in the divine plan of salvation as the Savior who founded it.
To be a member of the nation of Israel, it was not enough to count yourself an Israelite in your heart. There was a formal act by which you were initiated into membership. The difference is that the universality of Old Israel was not expressed in a divine call to all mankind to seek formal membership, whereas the universality of the New and True Israel of God, the universal Church, is. But it is just as specific and concrete a society, and one does not join it in the privacy of one’s own heart, but by a formal outward act in which one is pledged to the Church and embraced by her as her son or daughter.
In this respect the wedding analogy provides another point of reference. Marriage is a human universal, but it requires a formal and public act, in which one is both pledged and accepted. The difference here, of course, is that in a wedding the beloved is unique to oneself, not the universal Savior in the universal Church. But having accepted the scandal of particularity/universality in the universal Savior, I see no grounds for drawing a line in the sand when it comes to that of His Bride, the universal Church.
Matt: ps. are you going to answer my question about which Lutheren flavor(s) are still expressing the unadulterated Gospel?
I wasn’t going to, because I don’t like to repeat myself, but this could make a good point.
Matt: How do you know which flavor of Lutheranism is the true Gospel? Of the 30,000 or so other denominations and subdenominations of the protestant movement, each teaching some different gospel, which ones are catholic? Surely they all can’t be? They certainly don’t subscribe to the Augsburg Confession.
Yes, all Lutherans deserving the name subscribe to the Augsburg Confession. That is what makes them Lutheran. As I said before. “A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord*.” What about churches that call themselves Lutherans but don’t subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions? I take a similar position as Augustine.
The very name Lutheran belongs to Churches that confess the Book of Concord, in the face of so many others, who, for whatever reason, wish to be called ‘Lutheran’.
Today it is possible to point out a Lutheran Church deserving the name, and which are Lutheran “heretics”. In Augustine’s day it was possible to point out the Church deserving the name Catholic, in the face of so many heretics that wanted to be called Catholic. It is the teaching that makes it possible to tell the difference of which are hereticical churches and which are not.
*which contains the Augsburgh Confession, Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and other documents.
Matt: What authority does the Augsburg Confession hold? Who convened it and who sanctioned it? Is it like the Council of Nicea?
More than a little bit, thanks for asking.
1) There were religious divisions forming in the Church over doctrine.
2) An Emperor called a meeting of the theological minds to work out differences with the intention that all Christians would be on the same page and bring more stability to the Empire.
After that the similarites end. The Diet of Augsburg did not bring the intended unity, but there were confessional documents produced at both meetings.
The Council of Nicea produced the Nicene creed. The Diet of Augsburg produced the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Confutation, and the Apology to the Augsburg Confession which adderessed, point by point, all of the concerns of the Roman Confutation.
Take that for whatever its worth.
Ah, but those two cases are not at all parallel.
In Augustine’s day, as in the Catholic Church today, it was possible to point out those churches deserving the name Catholic because the Church’s own living and active teaching authority not only continued to interpret and apply its historic articles of faith in a living and active way, it also issued specific judgments about which of the available teachings and communions were true and which were false.
In other words, the judgment that the Donatists or the Montanists were outside the pale did not rest solely on Augustine’s own ability to compare of their beliefs with the standard of the Nicene Creed. Rather, the same teaching authority that formulated the Nicene Creed continued to apply its precepts to the errors of the Donatists and Montanists, and the Church itself declared them outside the pale.
By contrast, when you say that it is possible to point out a Lutheran church deserving the name, all you mean is that an individual Lutheran such as yourself who adheres to a particular historic confessional standard is free to arrive at his own conclusions about which communions today in his own judgment meet the standard set by that historic confessional standard. The confessional standard itself can’t tell you authoritatively which communions are true or false, or which recent theological developments and proposals are compatible with itself and which are not.
Who is to say who is Catholic and who is not? The Catholic Church. Who is to say who is Lutheran and who is not? Individual Lutherans. Big difference.
SDG: By contrast, when you say that it is possible to point out a Lutheran church deserving the name, all you mean is that an individual Lutheran such as yourself who adheres to a particular historic confessional standard is free to arrive at his own conclusions…
It’s not that hard! Jarnor23 did it without giving it a second thought.
Jarnor23: Pffft, as if the Lutherans believe in anything anymore. Openly homosexual “pastors” in the ELCA now.
ELCA is not deserving the name “Lutheran”, quite obviously.
What was the point of drafting the Nicene Creed anyway if it is “impossible” to tell if a Church doesn’t believe in it?
SDG: In Augustine’s day, as in the Catholic Church today, it was possible to point out those churches deserving the name Catholic because the Church’s own living and active teaching authority
You haven’t demonstrated that Augustine held that view. Augustine listed several points that kept him in the Church’s bosom.
[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Church’s] bosom.
[1]The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here.
[2]Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here.
[3]The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here.
[4]And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house
2, 3, & 4 are all separate issues. It doesn’t follow that the name Catholic belongs to the Church because of [2] or [3]. Augustine simply says that the name belongs to the Church “not without reason” without giving the reason, probably because it was obvious.
I didn’t say it was hard, necessarily (although just because Jarnor23 can do something without a second thought doesn’t necessarily mean it’s something anyone can do). My point is simply that nobody has the last word. You and Jarnor23 may be able to agree that the ELCA doesn’t believe what the Augsburg Confession teaches, but what if the ELCA disagrees? Or what if they disagree that the Augsburg Confession is the be-all and end-all for who is Lutheran? Who is to say that they’re wrong and you’re right? Why should your opinion on what Lutheran means be any more final or decisive than anyone else’s?
I never said it was “impossible” (with or without scare quotes). What I said was that the Church that drafted the Nicene Creed didn’t stop there and say “Now that everyone can tell who is in and who is out, there’s no more need for any more authoritative teaching.” The Catholic Church of Augustine continued to say what was what and who was who. And so does the Catholic Church today. Who does that today for the Lutherans (whoever they are)?
But we weren’t just discussing Augustine’s views, but the views of the fourth-century Catholic Church of Augustine.
That said, I’m sure Jimmy’s readers would be happy to document what Augustine believed with respect to my proposition that “it [is] possible to point out those churches deserving the name Catholic because the Church’s own living and active teaching authority not only continued to interpret and apply its historic articles of faith in a living and active way, it also issued specific judgments about which of the available teachings and communions were true and which were false.”
Any takers? I’ll be back. 🙂
SDG: My point is simply that nobody has the last word.
What if you went back in time and took a “blind taste test” of three Churches, a Catholic Church,
a Donatist Church, and a Montanist Church. All three of the Churches called themselves Catholic. You observed a service, and were able to ask questions about their doctrine, but they didn’t reveal anything about their heirarchy.
Are you telling me you couldn’t pick out the real Catholic Church out of the three? Are you telling me that only the Pope himself would be able to tell the real Catholic Church?
Are you telling me that you couldn’t (without knowing about the Church’s heirarchy) say “This Church is deserving the name “Catholic”?
Wrong question.
In the first place, it’s not just a question of what I could or couldn’t do. As I’ve had occasion to note elsewhere, I’m grateful enough and I have perspective enough to realize that in the grand scheme of things I’m pretty privileged to have had the leisure, education and resources that I have. At the same time, I’m acutely aware that Jesus came not only for bookish types like me, but for the illiterate and uneducated; if anything, he probably prefers the latter to the former.
It therefore seems to me that whatever Christianity is meant to be, it’s got to be something that works as well for an illiterate Idaho farmer, a single mom working swing shift as a checkout clerk while her parents mind the kids, a twelfth-century Italian stonemason, an eighth-century Greek fisherman, and so on, as for a big mouth like me with a seminary degree and too much time on his hands for writing in fora like this.
In the second place, whatever the merits of the double-blind taste test methodology you propose, my point is that this is not in fact the way the Church in Augustine’s day operated.
Everybody knew which were the Catholic churches, not because they could all Just Tell, but because the Church itself declared what was what and who was who. And yeah, I think we still need that today.
Do you think you would be able to tell which was the real Catholic Church well enough to be confident to join it and celbrate mass with it (without ever knowing its heirarchy and without a Pope to tell you which one)?
Jay D –
The above question has come up several times and I’ve yet to see you answer it. Care to take a stab at it? I’m very much interested in your response, specifically to the bolded portion.
Did you read my last post before writing this, or did we cross-post?
SDG: I’m grateful enough and I have perspective enough to realize that in the grand scheme of things I’m pretty privileged to have had the leisure, education and resources that I have. At the same time, I’m acutely aware that Jesus came not only for bookish types like me, but for the illiterate and uneducated; if anything, he probably prefers the latter to the former.
OK, OK. You are a smart and learned guy. All that Papal authority stuff isn’t for your benefit, it is for the unwashed masses.
Luther was pretty smart. He was pretty bookish. He had the study liesure of monastic life with access to ancient writings. He didn’t have the internet, though.
We cross posted, but I would still like an answer.
Why don’t you start with the answer I gave, and let’s go from there.
Sarcasm and rhetoric are one thing. You are crossing a line here, intentionally or otherwise. Let’s try to assume the best about one another and move forward in charity.
Matt: ps. are you going to answer my question about which Lutheren flavor(s) are still expressing the unadulterated Gospel?
I wasn’t going to, because I don’t like to repeat myself, but this could make a good point.
You would not be repeating yourself since I don’t believe you answered this before, nor did you below, but I’ll accept you’ve answered it as best you’re willing to.
Matt: How do you know which flavor of Lutheranism is the true Gospel? Of the 30,000 or so other denominations and subdenominations of the protestant movement, each teaching some different gospel, which ones are catholic? Surely they all can’t be? They certainly don’t subscribe to the Augsburg Confession.
Yes, all Lutherans deserving the name subscribe to the Augsburg Confession. That is what makes them Lutheran. As I said before. “A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord*.” What about churches that call themselves Lutherans but don’t subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions? I take a similar position as Augustine.
The very name Lutheran belongs to Churches that confess the Book of Concord, in the face of so many others, who, for whatever reason, wish to be called ‘Lutheran’.
Today it is possible to point out a Lutheran Church deserving the name, and which are Lutheran “heretics”. In Augustine’s day it was possible to point out the Church deserving the name Catholic, in the face of so many heretics that wanted to be called Catholic. It is the teaching that makes it possible to tell the difference of which are hereticical churches and which are not.
*which contains the Augsburgh Confession, Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and other documents.
Thanks for clarifying what the standards you have decided for the Lutheran label, by whose authority do you make that decision? Many of the doctrines of those documents do not appear directly in the Gospel (most notably “sola scriptura”) and yet you subscribe to them? What about the definitions in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creed about the Trinity? They are clearly beyond what can be determined from the anadulterated Gospel, and yet you and I both subscribe to them, I do because the Catholic Church tells me I must with the authority of the successors to the Apostles, as granted by Christ. Who tells you to subscribe to them?
Matt: What authority does the Augsburg Confession hold? Who convened it and who sanctioned it? Is it like the Council of Nicea?
More than a little bit, thanks for asking.
1) There were religious divisions forming in the Church over doctrine.
2) An Emperor called a meeting of the theological minds to work out differences with the intention that all Christians would be on the same page and bring more stability to the Empire.
Perhaps you misunderstood the question. What authority does it hold? It claims authority but it appears the only claim to the authority is that an emperor called it, and “theological” minds debated it. What of the successors to the Apostles, and especially St. Peter? It seems to me that the Augsburg Confession is to the Council of Nicea as is a lynching to a legitimate trial presided by an authorized judge. What do you disagree with about that analogy?
All of those councils which you subscribe to were convened and legitimized the exact same way Trent was, and nothing like the Augsburg Confession… why do you diverge from the constant apostolic teaching of the catholic Church from the Council of Jerusalem to the Council of Nicea by subscribing to a non-catholic nonlegitimate council like Augsburg and then rejecting the catholic Councils of Trent and beyond.
Now, will you cite the canons of Trent you find in opposition to the Gospel? It seems you made a pretty direct accusation so it seems charitable to identify the objections.
God Bless,
Matt
You didn’t answer.
“Do you think you would be able to tell which was the real Catholic Church (out of a Catholic Church, a Donatist Church, and a Montanist Church) well enough to be confident to join it and celebrate mass with the real deal (without ever knowing its heirarchy and without a Pope to tell you which one)?”
Think about the implications if your answer is “yes”. The Catholic Church would be recognizable. If you celebrated mass with it, you are making a huge statement that you consider your opinion to be the last word. You would be saying that this Church is the Catholic Church based on your opinion. Papal authority would have played no role in your decision.
Please answer.
He didn’t have the internet, though.
They didn’t have email, but they did have the e-pistles. (swiped from a Johnny Hart B.C. cartoon)
“Think about the implications if your answer is “yes”. The Catholic Church would be recognizable. If you celebrated mass with it, you are making a huge statement that you consider your opinion to be the last word.”
In fairness “rejecting Papal authority” does not directly imply that the person beleives that their opinion is the “last word”. That may be the effect, but they may rely on other authorities. A typical protestant response would be that the Bible is the final authority. Although how you would apply the Bible to the definition of “catholic” it would inherantly involve your own opinion, since it doesn’t appear.
By contrast having a living Vicar of Christ to speak on temporal matters avoids confusion. However accepting the Pope requires humility. In my opinion, humility or the lack of it, is one of the root causes of all Christian schisms.
God provides us with earthly authorities, as both reward and punishment. Obedience (within moral limits) is part of our duty. How’s that for countercultural?
Jay,
You didn’t answer.
“Do you think you would be able to tell which was the real Catholic Church (out of a Catholic Church, a Donatist Church, and a Montanist Church) well enough to be confident to join it and celebrate mass with the real deal (without ever knowing its heirarchy and without a Pope to tell you which one)?”
Think about the implications if your answer is “yes”. The Catholic Church would be recognizable. If you celebrated mass with it, you are making a huge statement that you consider your opinion to be the last word. You would be saying that this Church is the Catholic Church based on your opinion. Papal authority would have played no role in your decision.
Please answer.
Sorry for missing that. The answer is most certainly NO. Unlike in biology, if it looks like a duck and walks like one, it might not be a duck. Being part of the Catholic Church requires visible communion with the Successor of Peter and the the bishops in communion with him. The church must therefore be canonicly under the wing of the local bishop or some other structure duly established by the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, visible communion requires not only a structural connection, but a doctrinal connection. I’m sad to say that many parishes and even diocese are not in communion in this sense, and I avoid those places unless grave circumstances dictate otherwise.
When St. Paul was converted, did he just declare himself an apostle and go about his mission? No, he went to the apostles and was instructed and recieved by them before taking on the mantle. That’s what we’re waiting for from you… the doors are open, step inside, tell the parish priest you are a baptised person and that you wish to be recieved into the Catholic Church, he will instruct you and recieve you not unlike St. Paul.
God Bless,
Matt
Hey, guys, I wonder are you all payed to participate, or retired. I find many interesting opinions on this site and things worth honest discussion, but I cannot be here all the time.
I’ll read the atricle Mark suggested with maximum attention when I will be able to take time. But the discussion goes on, and I’ll be late in a few days. So, let me tell you the way I understand the Bible. Not intending to be a little pope, I believe, that everyone will be judged according his own conscience: “You must teach people to have genuine love, as well as a good conscience and true faith.” (1 Timothy 1:5) “And so, my dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn us, we have courage in God’s presence.” (1 John 3:21)
This is the answer about salvation. There are moral standards that oblige all who are aquainted with them. Surely, what I don’t have/know, I’ll not be accountable for. Those who transgress the principles they are familiar with have unclean conscience and are reconed unworthy. “But nothing unworthy will be allowed to enter. No one who is dirty-minded or who tells lies will be there. Only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life will be in the city.” (Revelation 21:27)
Well, do we know, whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life? Yes. Christ himself descloses the rule in His discourse to the Church. And it was AFTER his statement about the gates of hell, the statement that supposedly makes the church invincible: “I know what you are doing. Everyone may think you are alive, but you are dead. Wake up! You have only a little strength left, and it is almost gone. So try to become stronger. I have found that you are not completely obeying God. Remember the teaching that you were given and that you heard. Hold firmly to it and turn from your sins. If you don’t wake up, I will come when you least expect it, just as a thief does. A few of you in Sardis have not dirtied your clothes with sin. You will walk with me in white clothes, because you are worthy. Everyone who wins the victory will wear white clothes. Their names will not be erased from the book of life, and I will tell my Father and his angels that they are my followers.” (Rev. 3:1-5)
For all who’ve had enough patience to read this solemn text trough, there is hope. In fact for all who are sincere believers. But the words do cut deep. The church may look like living, being actually dead. What church? The Christian church, the universal, catholic church, if you want. Why? Because it doesn’t completely obey. There is a battle to be faught and won, if we are to be called worthy, and if we want our names to be left in God’s record. Unles we do this, we are not Jesus’ followers. This is what He says.
The message to the church is the most important one. It speaks of repentance, of doing what we did at first (apostolic teaching, the true Gospel), and even of being spat out.
It is true, the church, God’s genuine followers will not fall. But they are only a few names + those who will turn from their sins, and are washed in his blood.
“If you have ears, listen to what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Rev 3:6)
I know this to be quite a contrast whit what is said above, tu John the Baptist said to those belonging to God’s chosen nation who wanted to be baptized just in case, who understood the act saramentally. “Do those things that will show that you have turned from your sins. And don’t think you can escape punishment by saying that Abraham is your ancestor. I tell you that God can take these rocks and make descendants for Abraham! The ax is ready to cut down the trees at the roots; every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown in the fire.”
So it is not belonging, but sincerity. They belonged to the right people. But it was only nominal. This incident seems to speak against objective fervour through sacraments.
There is no safety in any church, but in the true relationship with Jesus, that is shown in obedience to his word.
In His love
To be clear, even though I’m not entirely sure of WHAT to consider the ELCA anymore, I’m pretty sure they’d still consider themselves Lutheran.
The question is, by whose authority are they wrong about this, or anything else?
Thanks for your honest answer of no Matt.
Matt: When St. Paul was converted, did he just declare himself an apostle and go about his mission?
Ummm. Yes he just went about his mission. No he didn’t just declare himself an apostle.
Galatians 1:15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I [b]did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was[/b], but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
18Then [b]after three years[/b], I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also….6As for those who seemed to be important—[b]whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message.[/b] 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.
Corinthians 3
1Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or [b]do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation[/b] to you or from you? 2You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. 3You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Stjepan,
Can you, please, show me from what biblical text you derive “the dogma of sola scriptura that says I have to show you the biblical text from which I derive the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and her Queenship in Heaven.”
Thank you.
SDG,
According to my opinion, the principle of sola scriptura is based in some warnings and advices in the Bible:
“I, John, solemnly warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if any add anything to them, God will add to their punishment the plagues described in this book. And if any take anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book.” (Rev. 22:18-19)
This obviously doesn’t apply only to the last book of the Holy Srciptures, for we read in the OT:
“Obey all the laws and teachings I am giving you. Don’t add any, and don’t take any away.” (Deut 12:32)
Whatever uderstanding a person or church upholds, must be judged by the Bible and not vice versa. Teaching contrary to what is already revealed is a bad sign:
“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isa 8:20)
Christ warned us that even our worship can be usles:
“It is useless for you to worship when you teach rules made up by humans.” (Mark 7:7) (Compare with Matt 7,21-23)
God bless
Stjepan,
So how does that “do not add…” teaching jibe with Baptist teetotalers?
Even so we view the teaching of the Assumption as Biblical- (in Revelations) further it adds no laws, which is what the text you refer to meant to restrict.
The doctrine of the Assumption is revelation and interpretation.
Stjepan,
Let me construct a scenario for you based only on a few tenets of faith and simple logic. Christ is God and the perfect Man simultaneously. Mary is his Mother and as a man Christ is bound to obey the command to Honor His Mother and Father. As God he can shower infinite Honor on His Mother and as the perfect Man He certainly has done so. Thus how do you imagine Christ honors his Mother?
I for one have always found it especially painful to see Mary as the victim of denominational fights. I’ll pull out all the stops to defend her – much more so than any given Pope. By the same token many protestants do not (in my view) sufficiently empathize with Christ. He picked His own Mother! Don’t you think she might be special – deserving exceptional honor? If you love Christ, how can you not love his Mother as well?
Sorry the belittlement of Mary gets under my skin.
If you so believe in sola scriptura, why then do you as a protestant reject the sacraments which are all based in scripture?
For the traditional Roman Rite.
BAPTISM:
Matter: water.
Form: “Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.”
Scripture: Matthew 28:18-20.
CONFIRMATION:
Matter: Holy Chrism.
Form: “Signo te signo Crucis, et confirmo te Chrismate salutis. In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.
Scripture: Acts 8:14-17.
HOLY EUCHARIST:
Matter: Wheaten bread and grape wine.
Form: “Hoc est enim Corpus meum.” “Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.”
Scripture: Matthew 26:26-28.
PENANCE:
Matter: the confession of the sin and the request for pardon.
Form: “Ego te absolvo.”
Scipture: John 20:21-23.
EXTREME UNCTION:
Matter: anointing of the senses with oil.
Form: the prayer pronounced for the pardon of sins (“Per istam sanctam unctionem, indulgeat tibi Dominus quidquid delequisti”).
Scripture: James 5:14-15.
HOLY ORDERS:
Matter: imposition of hands.
Form: “Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eorum spiritum sanctitatis; ut acceptum a te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineant, censuramque morum examplo suae conversationis insinuent.”
Scripture: Luke 22:19.
MATRIMONY:
Matter: The contract itself is the Sacrament, the contracting parties are its ministers, their own persons are the matter affected.
Form: The expression of their mutual consent.
Scripture: Matthew 19:6.
This is why ecumenism, rejected in teachings by the church pre-1962, is fallacy and shall never unite churistians. Only the love and obedience of true traditional catholic beliefs and teachings shall.
Nice John – great points. The bottom line is that Catholicism is faithful to the Bible.
I didn’t read all the comments, but I noticed that there were many posts mentioning St. Augustine.
Luther was an Augustinian, but why just focus on one Father from that period. What about these guys?
St. Basil the Great
St. Gregory the Wonderworker
St. Gregory Nazianzan
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Epiphanius
St. Jerome
St. Athanasius
St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. John Chrysostom
St. Ephraim the Syrian
St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Ambrose
St. Cyril of Alexandria
Let’s not read the Fathers in isolation. Just like the Bible has to be read as a whole, so do ALL the Fathers.
If you were to transport me just as I am, with all that I know as the heir to 2000 years of tradition and papal teaching? Quite possibly — though not necessarily. (Depends, too, what you mean by “confidence.”)
Certainly, one of the functions of the magisterium is to form the Church’s children so that they can think for themelves in line with the Church. So, because the magisterium has been doing its job for 2000 years, I am often able to have some confidence about the relationship of Church teaching to whatever I encounter — though in principle such judgments are provisional, not final, subject to correction by the living Church.
Had I never had the benefits of the living magisterium and papal teaching in the first place? If you just plunged me into the fourth century with no knowledge of contemporary magisterial teaching? Would I even know that Donatism and Montanism were heresies?
Had the papacy never existed in the first place? Would anyone be able to say definitively that Donatism and Montanism were heresies? To be sure, some people would say so, but how clear would it be that they were right and the others wrong?
At least we now know John is a “churistian”.
SDG: If you were to transport me just as I am, with all that I know as the heir to 2000 years of tradition and papal teaching? Quite possibly — though not necessarily. (Depends, too, what you mean by “confidence.”)
This is an “open book taste test”. You can take as many catechisms, papal bulls, apologetic reference books with you as you feel necessary. Heck. I’ll let you take your laptop and install a temporal internet connection to 2007, but you can’t email any Bishops.
Confidence would be your comfort level in participating in the activities of the Church you chose as the true Catholic Church. Would you confess to the priest and be confident of absolution? Would you partake of the mass? If you partook of the mass I don’t think you judgement could be considered provisional.
Can you can pick out the true Catholic Church, by its doctrines alone, without any authority telling you which one? Quite possibly you said.
If yes, it is you. It is you saying “this Church is really deserving the name Catholic” soley by your judgement that their doctrines are truely Catholic. No Pope told you “that Church is deserving the name Catholic”.
SDG: Had the papacy never existed in the first place? Would anyone be able to say definitively that Donatism and Montanism were heresies?
Are you able to say definitively that Donatism and Montanism are heresies? That is, in the open book blind taste test, if you went back in time and studied a Church that called itself Catholic but was really Donatist, could you unilaterally declare “this Church is heretical” (without any authority telling you)?
Jay,
By their fruits you will know them.
That is the conclusion you were determined to reach, rather than a sober characterization of what I wrote. But what exactly do you think you have established?
Throughout church history, faithful Catholics have always striven to apply their intellects as best they could to whatever issues, controversies, crises and dilemmas they were faced with. To think that the Church wants her children to be helpless to decide anything themselves, but only to parrot what the Church has already defined or sit back and wait for the Church to intervene, would be a ridiculous mistake.
Often brilliant saints and theologians have gone far beyond what was then defined by the magisterium in advancing understanding of the truth, advancing insights that were confirmed first by the assent of the faithful, and only later by the magisterium. Of course when saints and theologians argue their own insights rather than defined teaching, they do so provisionally, subject to the Church’s review and judgment.
For it is also true that other brilliant and equally sincere men have brilliantly advanced error, in very persuasive terms that could easily ensnare Christians far holier and more learned than you or I will ever be. Confidently to judge between truth and error is not always within the power even of the very learned and very wise, though we are certainly entitled to such opinions and judgments as we can arrive at.
The Church wants her children to do their best to judge truth and error. But people make mistakes, and even well-founded opinion is not definitive and final. The need for a living magisterium remains ongoing.
I would do my best, and I might well say rightly. But in the first place, I would have benefitted from 2000 years of the Church not sitting around leaving it up to individual Catholics to “unilaterally” declare things for themselves, and secondly, my “unilateral” opinion would only be one more opinion in the mix. It would resolve nothing, except for me.
Jay D, it seems to me that you err in part in the way that C.S. Lewis described, paraphrasing Pascal, as the error of Stoicism, viz, “thinking we can do always what we can do sometimes.”
SDG: my “unilateral” opinion would only be one more opinion in the mix. It would resolve nothing, except for me.
I agree.
I wouldn’t expect it to resolve anything for anyone other than yourself.
Jay D –
The above question has come up several times and I’ve yet to see you answer it. Care to take a stab at it? I’m very much interested in your response, specifically to the bolded portion.
Still waiting on an answer to this. I haven’t seen you address it yet.
You and Jarnor23 may be able to agree that the ELCA doesn’t believe what the Augsburg Confession teaches, but what if the ELCA disagrees? Or what if they disagree that the Augsburg Confession is the be-all and end-all for who is Lutheran? Who is to say that they’re wrong and you’re right?
This is kind of silly. If the Augsburg Confession says “all ducks float” and the ELCA teaches “brown ducks sink” it is an objective fact that the ELCA is not ascribing to the Confessions. I can’t do anything about the ELCA thinking they are ascribing to the Confessions, other than trying to reason with them.
Memphis Aggie,
You touched some good points. I will coment on them later. For now, please, do not get me wrong. I’m not speaking for anyone, but myself, though I believe that Protestantism shares my view. And I certainly think Jesus’ mother is special, diserving all respect. In no instance I wanted to belittle her (to regard or portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate, let alone in the sens of scorn). The dispute is over her rightfull place in the Bible. I don’t think she would mind me to discover and share the truth about her role in the salvation story.
I’ll be back in a few hours and answer your questions
Not so. In fact the proposition that all ducks float is not logically exclusive of the proposition that brown ducks sink. Can you do the heavy lifting on your own?
But as in fact AFAIK neither the Augsburg Confession nor the ECLA has much to say about the bouyancy of ducks, why don’t you convince us that it is an objective fact that the ECLA does not subscribe to the Augsburg Confession? Sort of fill in the ducks, as it were, or get your ducks in a row.
Secondly, and more importantly, you ignored my second question: “what if they disagree that the Augsburg Confession is the be-all and end-all for who is Lutheran?” Who gets to say what it means to be “Lutheran”?
Yes, and actually the Catholic Church cannot do anything about the Lefebvrites thinking that they are Catholic, other than trying to reason with them.
One important difference here is who it is doing the reasoning: The Catholic Church, with respect to who is Catholic and why, or individual Lutherans, with respect to who is Lutheran and why.
But who decided in the first place that all “Lutherans” were those who ascribed to the Augsberg confessions? And who gave them the authority to decide such a thing?
Moreover, what if the ELCA does claim that it ascribes to the Augsberg Confessions, but just has a different (and more correct, in their view) interpretation of the Confessions than the Missouri or Wisconsin Synods?
Sorry, hit the enter key too soon. In continuation of my last post —
Moreover, what if the ELCA does claim that it ascribes to the Augsberg Confessions, but just has a different (and more correct, in their view) interpretation of the Confessions than the Missouri or Wisconsin Synods? Whose interpretation is correct, who determines which interpretation is correct, and where does that person (or persons) derive their authority to make such a determination?
SDG: Not so. In fact the proposition that all ducks float is not logically exclusive of the proposition that brown ducks sink. Can you do the heavy lifting on your own?
…
Pardon?
JoAnna: But who decided in the first place that all “Lutherans” were those who ascribed to the Augsberg confessions?
I told you. Twice. I can’t help it if you don’t believe me.
JoAnna: But who decided in the first place that all “Lutherans” were those who ascribed to the Augsberg confessions?
That is to say. I told you twice that “Lutherans” were those who ascribed to the Augsburg confessions. I can’t help it if you don’t believe me.
And what gives you the authority to make such a determination on behalf of everyone who claims to be Lutheran?
SDG: my “unilateral” opinion would only be one more opinion in the mix. It would resolve nothing, except for me.
Jay D: I agree.
I wouldn’t expect it to resolve anything for anyone other than yourself.
SDG, any comment?
If you can resolve things for yourself, any alleged teaching authority of the Pope is superfluous. See?
JoAnna: And what gives you the authority to make such a determination on behalf of everyone who claims to be Lutheran?
What are you talking about? I never “made such a determination on behalf of everyone who claims to be Lutheran”.
I’m telling you a cosmic, objective, universal fact. Lutherans ascribe to the Book of Concord. You can either believe me that that fact is true or remain ignorant. I don’t want you to remain ignorant, which is why I tried to tell you a basic fact, but if you don’t believe me, what can I do?
Jay D,
SDG clearly stated and I repeat what he has already repeated:
Now I would ask you to consider these questions:
Why would Christ give the keys to Peter alone to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19; cf. Isa 22:22)?
Why would Christ say He would build His Church upon Peter and promise the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18)?
Why would Christ pray for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32)?
Why would Christ commission Peter and the Apostles to teach all that He had commanded with His authority (Matt. 28:18-20)?
It seems like you think Christ authority, commands and teachings are superfluous.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I’ll take that as a no.
Where to begin. Logically speaking, the contrary of “floats” is not “sinks.” It is “does not float.” If the proposition “X floats” is true, it follows that the proposition “X does not float” is false, but it does not follow not that the proposition “X sinks” is false. It is logically possible that “X floats” and “X sinks” may both be true. For example, submarines float; they also sink.
Too many variables are undefined in the propositions as given to rigorously ascertain any logical contradiction. What does “All ducks float” really mean? For instance, does it apply only when the ducks are alive, or not? Does it mean “All ducks float in water (fresh? salt?)” or “All ducks float in any liquid,” or “All ducks float in all possible media?”
The fact that in actual biological fact we can agree that brownness in ducks probably doesn’t correlate with any variation in bouyancy doesn’t affect the logic of the question — logically, it could easily be that God should decree that all ducks should float in salt water, say, but that brown ducks should sink in fresh. (Other things do.)
There are other possible loopholes as well, but I trust the point is clear.
I’ve already answered this. You seem not to have noticed. I have kids to read bedtime stories to just now, so I can’t explain it again. Look over what I have written. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.
SDG,
Lefebvrites thinking that they are Catholic
Lefebrites as you call them, or as the Catholic Church calls them members of the Society of St. Pius X and those laity who adhere to them, are Catholic by the very definition you made earlier in this thread and most clearly enunciated by the actions of the Holy See. To be suspended ‘a divinis’, or to be excommunicated one must be Catholic. Their priests are suspended ‘a divinis’ and their bishops are excommunicated, therefore they must be Catholic.
They can be reasonably considered to be “bad” Catholics for their acts which may or may not be schismatic but which are in many if not all cases disobedient. Then again, we are all “bad” Catholics for certain of our acts.
God Bless,
Matt
SDG: Where to begin. Logically speaking, the contrary of “floats” is not “sinks.” It is “does not float.” If the proposition “X floats” is true, it follows that the proposition “X does not float” is false, but it does not follow not that the proposition “X sinks” is false. It is logically possible that “X floats” and “X sinks” may both be true. For example, submarines float; they also sink.
Good job! By your judgment, a brown ducks that sometimes float and sometimes sink is compatible with the concept of “all ducks float” and “brown ducks sink”.
You convinced me. I changed my mind. Who needs a pope anyways?
“Lutherans ascribe to the Book of Concord” naturally leads to the conclusion that “everyone who says they are Lutheran ascribes to the Book of Concord, because Lutherans ascribe to the Book of Concord.”
And it’s NOT a basic fact. It is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. I’ve yet to see you prove that every single person in the world that calls him/herself Lutheran follow the Book of Concord.
I grew up ELCA Lutheran, and I never heard of the Book of Concord until this thread. I called myself a Lutheran for 22 years, was baptized and confirmed into the Lutheran faith, married in Our Savior’s Lutheran Church by a Lutheran minister. But I’m supposed to accept YOUR authority that I was NOT a Lutheran because YOU have said that the ELCA doesn’t ascribe to the Book of Concord.
By what authority, and by whose authority, are you telling me that I actually WASN’T a Lutheran?
And if the members of the ELCA (the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) aren’t Lutheran, what are they?
If the President of the ELCA called you tomorrow and said, “Who says we can’t call ourselves Lutheran, and by what authority can they make that determination?” what would you say?
I refer you again to Pascal (via Lewis).
Jay D:
Matt: When St. Paul was converted, did he just declare himself an apostle and go about his mission?
Jay D: Ummm. Yes he just went about his mission.
The Lord appeared to Saul:
Acts 9:15-20 And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do
Who shall tell Saul what to do? Well the Church of course, and Ananias is duly sent to instruct him:
Acts 9:15-20 Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized. And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened. And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days. And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
By the laying on of hands and baptism Ananias heals Saul and recieves him into the Church. As I said, he did not just go off and start his mission.
As St. Augustine said: Paul, though with the divine and heavenly voice prostrated and instructed, yet was sent to a man to recieve the sacraments, and to be joined to the Church
God Bless,
Matt
JoAnna: “Lutherans ascribe to the Book of Concord” naturally leads to the conclusion that “everyone who says they are Lutheran ascribes to the Book of Concord, because Lutherans ascribe to the Book of Concord.”
“Catholics obey the Pope” naturally leads to the conclusion that “everyone who says they are Catholic obeys the Pope, because Catholics obey the Pope.”
JoAnna: And it’s NOT a basic fact. It is YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. I’ve yet to see you prove that every single person in the world that calls him/herself Lutheran follow the Book of Concord.
I grew up ELCA Lutheran, and I never heard of the Book of Concord until this thread. I called myself a Lutheran for 22 years, was baptized and confirmed into the Lutheran faith, married in Our Savior’s Lutheran Church by a Lutheran minister.
If you weren’t Lutheran, it wouldn’t surprise me that you haven’t heard of the Book of Concord. Have you heard of the Small Catechism? Its in the Book of Concord.
The fact that Lutherans ascribe to the Book of Concord isn’t even controversial as far as I know. Why are you fighting me on this? From the ELCA website:
Jay D – Great! Thank you! You’ve finally acknowledged a source other than yourself as an authority for your statement that “Lutherans follow the Book of Concord.”
I would qualify the statement “All Catholics follow the Pope” as “All Catholics should follow the Pope, otherwise they aren’t living up to their professed faith very well.”
Just as all Lutherans should follow the Book of Concord if they profess to be Lutheran. But I’m sure many don’t. Does that mean they’re not Lutheran?
Yes, I have heard of the small catechism. I was required to memorize it as part of my confirmation classes. But I never knew it was part of the Book of Concord.
Now, the next logical step to this conversation is: What makes you so sure that the Book of Concord has more authority than the Catholic Magisterium? By whose authority does the Book of Concord claim to be the true, authentic teachings of Jesus Christ, and why do you believe them to be so?
You’ve finally acknowledged a source other than yourself as an authority for your statement that “Lutherans follow the Book of Concord.”
His acknowledgement acknowledges his own decision.
SDG: I refer you again to Pascal (via Lewis).
the error of Stoicism, viz, “thinking we can do always what we can do sometimes.”
What makes you think you, as a Catholic, can do what you did even sometimes? How do you know that was one of those times you could do it?
Namely, draw an original Theological conclusion from a subset of other Theological facts.
Also, you and I know that a brown ducks that sometimes float and sometimes sink is compatible with the concept of “all ducks float” and “brown ducks sink”. If a Pope came around later on and declared this to be true, that information would be totally superfluous.
JoAnn: Just as all Lutherans should follow the Book of Concord if they profess to be Lutheran. But I’m sure many don’t. Does that mean they’re not Lutheran?
YES! They aren’t Lutheran! No matter what they call themselves! That is what I’ve been trying to tell you! I WILL TELL YOU ONCE MORE AND THAT IS IT! I MEAN IT THIS TIME! “A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.”
If I call myself a polka dotted flying elephant… oh, never mind. I’m tired.
JoAnn: Great! Thank you! You’ve finally acknowledged a source other than yourself as an authority for your statement that “Lutherans follow the Book of Concord.”
I did what? I just tried to demonstrate that the objective cosmic fact, “A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.” is uncontroversial. I only did so as a courtesy to you, because you said you were once ELCA.
The objective cosmic fact that “A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.” would be true regardless if ELCA had it in their website or not.
I’m not sure I follow the epistomological problem you seem to think that I “as a Catholic” should be having here. My best guess is that you are working from a strange misconception of what it means to think “as a Catholic.” My best supporting hypothesis is that you are not reading the posts in this thread carefully enough, or you would know better.
Following a similar line of thought, when Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love God with one’s whole heart, mind and strength, that was totally superfluous, because many Jews already knew that.
SDG: I refer you again to Pascal (via Lewis).
the error of Stoicism, viz, “thinking we can do always what we can do sometimes.”
You tell me. What is it that you think you can do sometimes, but not always (in relation to your conclusion about brown ducks).
If you do this thing that you can do sometimes, how do you know this isn’t one of the times you can’t do it?
Why do you ask me? What specifically ecumenical or apologetical significance do you imagine that this question has for me specifically as a Catholic? It it not a question for every man, whether he is Catholic, Lutheran, atheist, what have you?
Here is my answer: A man dreaming or drunk or confused may think he sees what he does not; when it happens that a man sees something with clarity, he knows that he is not dreaming or drunk or confused. It does not follow that the clear-headed man sees all that is, or all that is needed, and has no need of guidance.
I can do some things without the Pope. For that matter, I can do some things without the Bible. It does not follow that I have no need of the Pope, or of the Bible.
I am curious: What is the authentic Lutheran position on the ordination of women? What guidance does the Augsburg Confession offer you there?
Also, does the Augsburg Confession itself profess itself to be authoritative and infallible? If not, then could it not be in error?
If the Augsburg Confession professes sola scriptura, then one who embraces it should hold his beliefs solely on the basis of scripture alone, without reference to the Augsburg Confession. Right?
How clearly do you feel that scripture alone teaches the doctrine of pedobaptism, for instance? Given that the Augsburg Confession is fallible and could be in error, how certain are you, and how are you certain, that the Lutheran view on this subject is correct?
How certain are you, and how are you certain, about the canon of scripture itself? Do you agree with the view of those Protestants who consider the canon of scripture “a fallible collection of infallible books?” If not, on what more sure basis do you advance your confidence in the canon?
The objective cosmic fact that “A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.” would be true regardless if ELCA had it in their website or not.
This is not an objective cosmic fact, this is a defination based on human tradition that could be changed by common agreement. It happens to be an accurate defination but it is mutable.
The Law of Gravity is an objective fact. “(physics) the force of attraction between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth’s mass for bodies near its surface; “the more remote the body the less the gravity”; “the gravitation between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”
SDG: What is the authentic Lutheran position on the ordination of women? What guidance does the Augsburg Confession offer you there?
Good question. Orinataion of women wasn’t on anyone’s radar in the 16th century, so I don’t think it says anything like “only men can be ordained”. However, it says various things like:
10] It is also evident that in the ancient Church priests were married men. 11] For Paul says, 1 Tim. 3, 2, that a bishop should be chosen who is the husband of one wife. (Augsburg confession article XXIII)
Anyway, the Bible unambiguous on the topic, don’t you agree? “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent”(1 Tim.2:11–12)
“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,but should be subordinate,as even the law says …what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:33–34,37)
Also, does the Augsburg Confession itself profess itself to be authoritative and infallible?
No. It isn’t that kind of document. It basically describes what we believe, with lots of explanations on why we believe it. It is the answer to the question “what is a Lutheran?”
A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.
If the Augsburg Confession professes sola scriptura, then one who embraces it should hold his beliefs solely on the basis of scripture alone, without reference to the Augsburg Confession. Right?
It does profess sola scriptura and you are right.
How clearly do you feel that scripture alone teaches the doctrine of pedobaptism, for instance?
It is clear. I am sure pedobaptism is a correct teaching.
How certain are you, and how are you certain, about the canon of scripture itself?
Lutherans do not have a closed canon, as the Church never functioned with one. Catholics closed their canon at Trent, as one of the first orders of business.
Jay D,
if the Bible is the sole rule of faith, how does one know what the books of scripture are, as they are not delineated therein. If the Bible is the sole rule of faith, then how can the Church be the pillar and foundation of truth? In the whole Gospel, does Christ even suggest the apostles ought to write something down? It seems Christ is clear that He came to build a Church… not a book.
So, if you follow concord, you are following a non-scriptural source, with apparent contradiction to a scriptural source in saying that you only follow scriptural sources? It’s a nullity.
The door is wide open, Jay… just step inside.
God Bless,
Matt
I grew up in the Dutch Reformed tradition. My father was an ordained pastor. Every two to four weeks the publication of the CRC, The Banner, was delivered to our house. Some years it seemed not an issue when by but that the question of women’s ordination was referenced one way or another. The issue had an absolute stranglehold on our tradition, and Christians holier and more learned than your or I will ever be, versed in the biblical languages, filled with the Holy Spirit, came down on opposite sides of the question.
Once, I thought that the Bible unambiguously taught against women’s ordination. Then I learned some more about the other side of the question, and I believed that the weight of biblical evidence favored the other side.
In the end I came to realize that there was a credible case to be made both ways, and differing conclusions are possible even among serious, devout Christians. Based on sola scriptura, whatever opinion I came to would only be my opinion; I could never be sure that it was the one unambiguous truth.
How deeply have you explored both sides of the issue? My father did his pastoral thesis on pedobaptism, so I know something about the theology and the arguments. Here again, I agree with your conclusion, but I wonder whether you fully grasp that the other side can be vigorously defended beyond your depth and mine. I would submit that in order to defend this conclusion on the basis of sola scriptura, you have to be willing to build up a very elaborate exegetical structure on an awfully shaky textual basis.
But how certain are you when you appeal to a particular book of scripture (say, Hebrews or Revelation) that the book is actually inspired? Just because it has long been regarded as so by Christians, are they not fallible men who could have made a mistake all these centuries? Luther thought so. Didn’t he?
SDG: Here again, I agree with your conclusion…
OK. Can’t we… agree to agree or something, and move on? Why are you badgering me?
Lutherans do not have a closed canon, as the Church never functioned with one. Catholics closed their canon at Trent, as one of the first orders of business.
The Church functioned with a closed canon. It wasn’t defined until certain heretics came along and disputed what everyone accepted, namely the canon.
Me badgering you???
I thought the overriding question in this discussion went something like this: “Why does anyone need a papacy at all, since clearly we can discern truth without it? Did you answer that question all by yourself, without the pope telling you the answer? Then you don’t need the papacy, do you? Good answer! Who needs the papacy?” :‑)
Say! I just thought of an actual fun fact about non-floating ducks! It is true — subject to certain implicit assumptions — that “All ducks float.”
However, it is also true — not just theoretically logically possible, but actually biologically true — that some ducks do not float. In fact, some ducks will sink and drown if you put them in water.
Yet this is not contradicted by the proposition “All ducks float,” as long as the latter is properly understood.
Shall I explain? 🙂
All (normal, healthy) ducks float — when they mature sufficiently to have properly functioning oil glands. Ducks waterproof their feathers with oil from their oil glands, and this is what makes them float.
However, downy yellow ducklings do not have mature oil glands. Typically, downy yellow ducklings are waterproofed by contact with their mothers, from whose oiled feathers their own yellow down receives sufficient oil for waterproofing. This enables downy yellow ducklings to follow their mothers into the water.
However, any downy yellow duckling deprived of a mother — say, a duckling hatched from an incubator, or a duckling whose mother dies — will not be able to waterproof its feathers until its own oil glands mature.
Placed in water, such a downy yellow duckling will sink and drown.
So it is true that all ducks float (rightly understood), but it is also true that some ducks do not float.
You have to be careful about what you think you know.
SDG: But how certain are you when you appeal to a particular book of scripture (say, Hebrews or Revelation) that the book is actually inspired?
Why are you asking? Are any Lutheran doctrines built on any particular books you find objectionable?
What has that got to do with anything? Just because I happen to agree with you about Hebrews and Revelation, does it follow that we aren’t both wrong? Personally, I’d like my confidence in the inspiration of Hebrew and Revelation to rest on something more secure than the fact that the person I happen to arguing with at the moment happens to agree with me on the specific point at issue.
Of course I could always get into Luther’s rejection of purgatory and prayers to saints, and his corresponding rejection of 2 Maccabees… but even sticking to the NT canon where there is no controversy, the question remains: Just because we all agree, does it follow that we are right?
SDG: I thought the overriding question in this discussion went something like this: “Why does anyone need a papacy at all, since clearly we can discern truth without it?
Not exactly. The overriding question is, are Lutheran doctrines Catholic?
When it comes to pedobaptism, you said, “Here again, I agree with your conclusion…”.
That’s one down. Let’s agree to agree that that doctrine is Catholic and move on to the next one.
Is the doctrine Catholic? Yes. Is the truth of the doctrine certainly evident on the basis of sola scriptura? Ah, that’s another question. Given the reality of the differing conclusions reached by different persons relying on the same basis of sola scriptura, I do not think it is credible to answer that question in the affirmative.
If the topic is whether Lutheran doctrines are Catholic, eventually we will have to ask whether the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura is Catholic. If there are other doctrines you’d prefer to tackle instead, let me know.
SDG: Is the doctrine Catholic? Yes. Is the truth of the doctrine certainly evident on the basis of sola scriptura? Ah, that’s another question.
Why? Who cares? What do you care if it is evident on the basis of sola scriptura or not? You don’t even ascribe to sola scriptura. What counts is that we agree the doctrine is Catholic.
eventually we will have to ask whether the Lutheran doctrine of sola scriptura is Catholic.
Sola scriptura is not itself a doctrine per se. It is a description of how we judge a particular doctrine to be true. Sola scriptura is how we went about assembling a set of Christian doctrines. Its a tool. Like if you were decoding a secret message. Once you decoded the message, you don’t need the key anymore unless you want to remember how you decoded the secret message.
If you and I agree on the secret message, the key is irrelevant really, unless you want to know how I decoded the message.
If you and I agree on doctrine, sola scriptura doesn’t really matter unless you want to know how I got to the doctrine.
JoAnn: Just as all Lutherans should follow the Book of Concord if they profess to be Lutheran. But I’m sure many don’t. Does that mean they’re not Lutheran?
Jay D: YES! They aren’t Lutheran! No matter what they call themselves! That is what I’ve been trying to tell you! I WILL TELL YOU ONCE MORE AND THAT IS IT! I MEAN IT THIS TIME! “A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.”
Sorry I raised my voice, BTW. It is just that people asked me several times what makes a person Lutheran or not. I answered but I don’t know if people ignored me or what, but I kept getting asked the question. I will be patient next time and give the answer as often as necessary. “A Lutheran is a person who believes, teaches and confesses the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord.”
“Sola scriptura is not itself a doctrine per se.”
Sounds like the Queen of All Doctrines, if it is the way you determine all the others. The foundational doctrine. If Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, how do you define “doctrine”?
One online definition;
“That which is held to be true by any person, sect, or school; especially, in religion, a tenet, or body of tenets”
Would you disagree with that definition?
It’s precisely because I don’t ascribe to sola scriptura that I care. And it’s precisely because you do that you should.
But what if I think that the key you used is a flawed one that has prevented you from decoding the entire message, thus depriving you of much good that our good Lord wishes for all his children?
Then I must recall you to the question of your key, and what basis you have for thinking that it is the right key that has got you to the right message.
You say sola scriptura is a tool. A human tool, or a God-given one? If you believe it is God-given, upon what do you base this belief? But if you believe it is human, upon what do you base your belief that it is reliable for ascertaining the whole message of God?
Tim J. “That which is held to be true by any person, sect, or school; especially, in religion, a tenet, or body of tenets”
Would you disagree with that definition?
I would say a doctrine is “That, of theological importance, which is held…”
Sola scriptura itself has no bearing on my salvation, for example. It is the end doctrines that do. If I came by the end doctrines some other way (like if Peter or Paul told me directly), sola scriptura would be unnecessary.
I used the analogy of a message decoder to describe sola scriptura. Now that I think about it, a filter sounds better.
There were a lot of doctrines floating around in the sixteenth century, some of which didn’t ring true when reading the words of the apostles. The evangelical reformers ran existing doctrines through the filter of scripture. Some doctrines were bolstered, some were found conflicting with scripture and were dropped.
It is kind of like King Josiah.
The Bible was not physically lost in the sixteenth century, but the text took a back seat in mediæval times. Tradition was allowed to drift anchorless. Evangelical reformers read the text anew and began sorting through historical traditions in order to ground them to sound doctrine.
It’s like Josiah a lot more than you think, with people who honestly wanting to follow God seeing what the early Church taught and seeing that it is what the Catholic Church teaches today. They rend their robes saying “why has my Protestant church been lying to me?” It is good we have such a forgiving God.
So, we have it on your sole authority that this Book of Concord is absolutely correct and the standard of what it is to follow Christ. Hail Pope Jay!
So, let me get this straight Jay; those Catholic monks who hand copied all those Bibles which were more expensive than 1000 peasants could afford, didn’t read what they were copying?
A highly dubious assumption if you ask me.
And, you are forgetting that in the early days of the Church the Eastern Christians vastly outnumbered the Western Christians. And that the Christians of the East copied their Medieval Greek copies from the original Koine Greek Scriptures.
No one forgot anything about the Bible, except those who thought they knew better than the Church.
Of course I could always get into Luther’s rejection of purgatory and prayers to saints, and his corresponding rejection of 2 Maccabees… but even sticking to the NT canon where there is no controversy, the question remains:
There is no controversy now.
Let us not forget who called the Letter of James an epistle of straw.
Jarnor23 So, we have it on your sole authority that this Book of Concord is absolutely correct and the standard of what it is to follow Christ. Hail Pope Jay!
My sole authority? Um, no. The BoC represents what I believe, that’s it. It is a confession of faith. If that faith is not Catholic®, so be it, I’m not Catholic®. If you were ever to come to the point where you believe, teach and confess the truths of God’s Word as they are summarized and confessed in the Book of Concord, you too can be Lutheran.
“There were a lot of doctrines floating around in the sixteenth century, some of which didn’t ring true when reading the words of the apostles…”
You mean, didn’t ring true according to the private interpretation of a *some*. They certainly rang perfectly true to most Christians, and still do.
“The evangelical reformers ran existing doctrines through the filter of scripture. Some doctrines were bolstered, some were found conflicting with scripture and were dropped.”
Again, I think that should be “some were found conflicting with certain individuals’ understanding of scripture”.
“The Bible was not physically lost in the sixteenth century, but the text took a back seat in mediæval times. Tradition was allowed to drift anchorless.”
And these conclusions are based on what *specific* evidence? Medieval times have been given short shrift since the so-called “Enlightenment”. Dubbed the “Dark Ages” by the anti-religious zealots who labored doggedly to drag us all into the brilliant light of atheistic humanism. It was the poisoned soil of the enlightenment that nourished sprouts like Luther and Zwingli.
“Evangelical reformers read the text anew and began sorting through historical traditions in order to ground them to sound doctrine.”
You’re close to something, here. They DID read the text “anew” in a very significant sense – wresting from it novel interpretations like Sola Fide, an idea completely alien to the life of the Church to that point. They stepped outside the living tradition of the Church Christ founded and – not surprisingly – emerged with a lot of *new* ideas as it suited them.
It would be like me reading all my grandfather’s letters and, based on that, thinking that I now understood him better than my mother, who had lived with him and interacted with him daily for decades. She carries a LIVING MEMORY of my grandfather that can not be approximated by any sort of leapfrogging over history in an attempt to get back to the “real” source… for the “real source” was my grandfather, and not his letters. My mother KNEW the real source – my grandfather – face to face, and if I truly want to learn about him, it will involve getting face to face with my mother. It is also my mother who preserved my grandfather’s letters all these years.
Reading my grandfather’s letters will no doubt give me some insight and will contribute greatly to my understanding, but they are no substitute for the living family history that I can get at my mother’s feet. Now, if I were an orphan, and had no mother, then the letters might be the best I could do. But the fact is that we DO have a mother in the Church. We are NOT orphans.
Come to think of it, the familial title “Mother Church” articulates this principle in a powerful and poetic way.
Remember the business about ducks?
“Some were found conflicting with scripture.” Interesting how you put that in the passive voice. They were found conflicting. No, as Tim J pointed out, what happened was some reformers decided that there were conflicts. The problem is, as we saw with the duck business, sometimes it seems obvious to someone that a conflict exists, when in fact perhaps there isn’t.
Worse yet, different reformers, using the same “filter” of sola scriptura, “found” different things conflicting, didn’t they? For instance, some using sola scriptura “found” pedobaptism conflicting with scripture. But you are sure that your position is right on that.
Why do I raise the point, since I agree with you? Because I disagree that the filter is sufficient to differentiates truth from error on this subject, just as I disagree that it is sufficient to differentiate truth from error on other subjects where we disagree.
In other words, you as a Protestant question the papacy in part because you feel that the “filter” of sola scriptura doesn’t commend the institution and the doctrine to you. I happen to think that the Bible does support the papacy, although it helps to have sacred tradition as well as scripture to see it. Nevertheless, we might perhaps safely say that all Christian communities that embrace sola scriptura reject the papacy, and so perhaps a defense could be made for the proposition that sola scriptura does not support the papacy.
But is sola scriptura a useful and sufficient filter for arriving at all needed truth in the Christian life? Here is where the example of pedobaptism comes in. Here the division is not between those who accept sola scriptura and those who don’t; it is precisely among those who do accept sola scriptura that division exists on this subject. (No such divisions exist among those who embrace scripture and tradition.)
So, if, as I think the facts warrant saying, sola scriptura is not a sufficient filter of truth to bring us safely and surely to the truth of pedobaptism, then how do you know it has brought you safely and surely to other truths, such as the truth regarding the papacy?
“Since those who seemed influential weren’t listening, the evangelical reformers went ahead and compiled their statement of faith which included the idea that “all ducks float” and “brown ducks sink” aren’t necessarily incompatible.
Sometime later, those who seemed influential in the Catholic Church went ahead and solidified their erroneous tradition into officialness.
The rest is history.”
Rich fantasy life you have, there. Care to address any of our points?
I’m aware that my post of 12:54:31 PM (above) is full of maddening syntactical errors, but I was composing on the fly and really needed to be on my way somewhere.
My tenses are all screwed up, but… hopefully the points are not totally lost. There goes my career as an editor.
Tim J: You mean, didn’t ring true according to the private interpretation of a *some*. They certainly rang perfectly true to most Christians, and still do.
Obviously.
Again, I think that should be “some were found conflicting with certain individuals’ understanding of scripture”.
Again, obviously. This isn’t really a “point” I feel the need to respond to. Do you think I didn’t realize this?
And these conclusions are based on what *specific* evidence?
Read the Book of Concord.
You’re close to something, here. They DID read the text “anew” in a very significant sense – wresting from it novel interpretations like Sola Fide, an idea completely alien to the life of the Church to that point.
You mean, a completely alien idea for *some*.
They stepped outside the living tradition of the Church Christ founded and – not surprisingly – emerged with a lot of *new* ideas as it suited them.
Again, I think that should be “some ideas were appeared *new* to certain individuals”
Try again — and this time, correlate “conflicting with scripture” with “‘all ducks float’ is incompatible with.” Can you do the heavy lifting?
SDG: Try again — and this time, correlate “conflicting with scripture” with “‘all ducks float’ is incompatible with.” Can you do the heavy lifting?
I don’t know what you are trying to say.
SDG: Try again — and this time, correlate “conflicting with scripture” with “‘all ducks float’ is incompatible with.” Can you do the heavy lifting?
If I understand you correctly, the Book of Concord attempts to do the “heavy lifting”. Are you saying it didn’t succeed?
Let me help.
Your attempt to ascribe to Catholic tradition the thesis “‘All ducks float’ is incompatible with ‘brown ducks sink’,” and to cast Luther as concluding that “that wasn’t necessarily true,” founders on the obvious fact that it was the Reformers — not the Church — who were declaring “X is incompatible with Y,” while the Church had been saying all along (since Augustine’s day and before) that they were compatible.
In your own words, the Reformers “ran existing doctrines through the filter of scripture,” and “some were found conflicting with scripture and were dropped.” Kind of like how someone might run the proposition “Some ducks sink” through the filter “All ducks float,” and think that there was a conflict and the proposition would have to be dropped.
In other words, “All ducks float” represents the clear teaching of sacred scripture, and “Some ducks sink” represents the clear teaching of sacred tradition. (This is not to say that scripture doesn’t at least implicitly attest sinking ducks, and certainly not that tradition doesn’t also affirm floating ducks. However, the scriptural evidence for sinking ducks might not necessarily be clear to a hostile reader who had rejected tradition.)
The Catholic Church’s teaching, in concert with the early Church, the Catholic Church of Augustine, was that the eucharistic sacrifice, the ministerial priesthood, the apostolic succession of bishops, prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and so forth were compatible with scripture.
The Reformers said, in effect, “Those are sinking ducks that are incompatible with the scriptural teaching that all ducks float.”
Worse, as I mentioned above, the Reformers widely disagreed about which Catholic ducks were incompatible with scripture (or sola scriptura).
Some concluded that pedobaptism didn’t float in scripture. You think they were wrong. So, you tacitly acknowledge that Protestants using sola scriptura can be mistaken about what floats in scripture and what doesn’t. (Yeah, I’m mixing metaphors, sue me.) To me, all of this raises a question about just how useful and reliable a filter sola scriptura is, and how confident Protestants can be of the falsity of what they personally have judged to be incompatible with scripture.
Any clearer?
Again, I think that should be “some were found conflicting with certain individuals’ understanding of scripture”.
Again, obviously. This isn’t really a “point” I feel the need to respond to. Do you think I didn’t realize this?
Yes. You didn’t realize it, and you still don’t.
You are propounding that the office of the Papacy was invented with the Reformation and invested in those certain individuals.
Furthermore, you are contradicting Scripture, which teaches it is not subject to private interpretation.
quack, quack, quack
Jay D,
Word Alone, Faith Alone, Grace Alone
the Book of Concord attempts to do the “heavy lifting”. Are you saying it didn’t succeed?
So let’s pass this teaching of the Book of Concord through the filter of the Scripture:
Concord says Epitome of the Formula of Concord III, 1:
that we poor sinners are justified before God and saved alone by faith in Christ
I did a search for the words faith and only, and came up with this:
James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
I also noticed that you seem to say that the doctrine of “word alone” is not a doctrine as such but a filter, a plain review of this website appears to make it more like a superdogma, as is the doctrine of “faith alone”.
God Bless,
Matt
ps. since you’ve not responded, can I assume you have reconsidered your position on the canons of the Council of Trent?
Okay, I’m going to leap back into this discussion.
Going with the analogy of the ducks that SDG is using: Every duck I’ve ever seen has floated. Therefore, I believe that all ducks float. Let’s say that my roommate disagrees with me and says that ducklings will sometimes sink. I have never seen a duckling sink, so I do not believe her.
Now, a communications major and a social work major don’t have the training to resolve a dispute about aquatic birds. So we would go to a source that has authority. Most likely, we would go to the library and check out a book about ducks. But what if the book is unclear on whether ducklings do sink? What if the texts of these biology books are highly technical and difficult to understand?
We could each of us go on our own authority, citing texts that approve our position. But let’s say, hypothetically, that there is a particular ornithologist who is invested with infallible authority on all things concerning ducks. He has the last word on the interpretation of studies concerning whether ducks float or sink. When he hears of this controversy surrounding whether ducks float or sink, he writes an article in a magazine telling about how it is that certain ducklings in certain situations do in fact sink. Because I trust the authority of the Infallible Ornithologist, I concede that my roommate has won the argument.
It works the same way with a theological dispute. I don’t have the training to answer complex theological questions. If I’m in a theological dispute with someone, I could cite the Bible, and often do. However, the person with whom I’m arguing can cite the Bible right back. Perhaps I am merely dense, but there are certain passages of the Bible which are difficult to understand. You can use the Bible to justify a whole bunch of different things. Who decides which interpretation is correct? So, ultimately, I have to go to the authority of the Pope. This is what the Church is for–when a particular passage causes dispute and confusion, the Pope will issue an encyclical clarifying the issue. If it is a particularly contentious issue, there will be an ecumenical council. Rather like a bunch of ornithologists getting together in a conference to resolve a particularly puzzling question about ducks.
I am probably violating rule 3, so I’ll step back out now. Just to summarize: What’s your authority? Why is your interpretation of the Bible better than my interpretation? To whom do you go when a question is over your head?
Matt, Megan Elizabeth, great posts.
I don’t see how having the authority of the pope helps. Many things that Catholics used to believe are no longer taught by the church.
For example, pre-Vatican II, most catholics probably thought that the church rejected religious liberty, supported the death penalty, rejected higher critical views of the Bible, disagreed with ecumenical confabs, etc.
Then a more liberal Magisterium took over and these clear teachings were reinterpreted. How does the pope help? I don’t see any reason why JP II’s statement in opposition to women priests could not be reinterpreted by a pope who is even more liberal than he was.
Catholics can cite Bible versus for and against certain positions. Prots can cite Catholic documents for and against all sorts of positions.
It’s hard for me to see this argument as anything other than disingenuous, though I will try to believe that you, Jeb, are sincere in making it.
Even among conservative, Bible-believing Evangelical Protestants — not just Protestants generally, but Protestants united by a high view of scripture as the inspired and inerrant word of God, sharing a serious commitment to sola scriptura as a sure and certain norm of faith — there are fundamental, profound, hopeless, irreconcilable divisions on such basic issues of Christian belief and practice as pedobaptism, the ordination of women, even fundamental soteriology, e.g., the “Lordship salvation” controversy, the possibility of falling from grace, etc.
Among non-dissenting Catholics, Catholics committed to the Church’s teaching authority, such divisions as these do not exist. We may disagree about things like the war in Iraq and whether allowing wider access to the 1962 Mass is a good idea, but the kind of fundamental, profound, hopeless, irreconcilable divisions on basic issues of Christian belief and practice that divide conservative, Evangelical Protestants simply do not exist among non-dissenting Catholics.
That is why we Catholics, sharing only a common commitment to the living magisterium and possibly little else culturally or temperamentally, remain one communion, whereas conservative, Bible-believing Evangelical Protestants with much more in common culturally and temperamentally must necessarily go their separate ways on Sunday morning — because A cannot accept the woman pastor at B’s church, while B does not accept pedobaptism as practiced at A’s church, etc.
Pure wishful thinking on your part, from a wing of Christendom where basic moral precepts on homosexuality and the like are becoming increasingly controversial and embattled. Not even ultraliberal Catholic revisionists harbor any such hope of “reinterpreting” JP2’s words, only (vainly) of overthrowing them.
Megan Elizabeth:
If there is not an infallible authority, the fact remains that a duckling will sink or a duckling will float. If two people read a text on a subject, one or the other might get the correct answer, or they might draw wrong conclusions. If there is a dispute about a passage, there may be people who are interpreting it wrong. Tough cookies.
What matters is that the truth of the Gospel exists somewhere. If the truth of the Gospel exists somewhere, any given person has a chance to hear it. He or she may hear a hundred false Gospels before hearing the one true one.
Faith does not come from trust in an infallible authority. Faith comes from hearing the true Word of God.
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
The Word of God is powerful. Faith comes from hearing the Word of God. That is why Jesus told his disciples to spread the Word. When the Word is preached, it falls on ears.
Jay D: That doesn’t help us with disputed subjects such as pedobaptism, ordination of women, various soteriological disputes, etc., all of which hopelessly divide sincere conservative Evangelical Protestants thoroughly committed to the Bible as the inerrant word of God and to sola scriptura as the rule of faith.
The question is not just where does faith come from. The question is also how do we know what Christ wants us to do and to believe on fundamental points of faith.
He or she may hear a hundred false Gospels before hearing the one true one.
Jsy, the question remains, by what criteria to decide when there are differing views of what is the true Gospel.
Jay D,
What matters is that the truth of the Gospel exists somewhere. If the truth of the Gospel exists somewhere, any given person has a chance to hear it. He or she may hear a hundred false Gospels before hearing the one true one.
Faith does not come from trust in an infallible authority. Faith comes from hearing the true Word of God.
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
The Word of God is powerful. Faith comes from hearing the Word of God. That is why Jesus told his disciples to spread the Word. When the Word is preached, it falls on ears.
Your mistake here, is that you are making an exclusive connection between the Word of God and the written Word in the Bible. There is no such exclusivity, and the Bible doesn’t make this claim, in fact, the verses above are referring to hearing the Word of God preached to them by one of the apostles or those instructed by them, according to oral tradition.
It seems to me blasphemous to attempt to imprison the Word in a book, for the Word is the living God, the Son of the Father…Jesus Christ.
John 1:1-3In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
Jeb,
your assertions of changes in doctrine are well refuted, every refuse you cite has been well clarified. I would guess you know this though, let him who has ears to hear…
God Bless,
Matt
ps. Jay, still waiting for a response on Trent, are you having trouble with your doctrine-filter?
Steve DG,
I don’t see how your post refutes my point. In, say 1920 a Catholic could cite dozens of church fathers, numerous councils and numerous statements of popes accepting or strongly implying Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (and none contrary). (The same could be said about other questions of Biblical authorship.) Now even the pope doesn’t believe this. And it’s not just biblical criticism where I could engage in such an analysis, but no salvation outside the church, religious freedom and other matters.
I do not consider denominations that ordain women to be Evangelical, so that’s not a dispute within Evangelicalism.
As far as certain wings of “Evangelicalism” accepting homosexuality, what about the Catholic church shuffling around pedophiles from diocese to diocese so they could prey on children again? Isn’t that a compromise on basic moral principles that went on for decades, if not centuries?
Jeb,
Have we really not had this discussion before, or are we just going in circles?
When the popes and fathers say that the pastorals are inspired scripture, that’s an article of faith. When they say that the pastorals were authored by St. Paul, that’s a scholarly judgment. Scholarly judgments do not become articles of faith by being widely and unquestioningly held. The inspiration and authority of the pastorals is not called into question by the academic opinion that they were written pseudonymously. If it did, no pope would entertain such an opinion.
Incidentally, similarly widespread patristic opinion attested the Mosaic authorship of the Penteteuch as well as the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, etc. Do you think that those opinions should be held definitively?
It’s very convenient for you to define denominations that ordain women as outside Evangelicalism, but I can tell you for a fact from my own experience that those as do and those as don’t can hold identical commitments to the authority and inerrancy of scripture and can even be dogmatic on questions like the Pauline authorship of the pastorals.
You can define words however you like, but the fact is that a commitment to the inerrancy of scripture and to sola scriptura as the rule of faith does not get you to your position on the ordination of women.
So apparently to be Evangelical you need more than just sola scriptura as the rule of faith and a commitment to the inerrancy of the Bible. On certain controversial points you also have to interpret it correctly as defined by Jeb Protestant. Have I got that right?
Congratulations on working in the abuse scandal, that was both classy and relevant, not. Yes, some Catholic ecclesiastics have been, are still and will ever continue to be seriously derelict in their duties. If you thought that was somehow a telling point in this discussion, either you understand Catholic teaching far less than I gave you credit for or you weren’t following the conversation very closely.
As regards teaching, which happens to be the subject, you may have noticed that the Catechism, and more recently the Compendium, continue to teach the truth on this subject. The Church will continue to teach the truth on this subject 100 years from now. How confident are you that your ecclesial community will be able to say the same?
Matt: Jay, still waiting for a response on Trent, are you having trouble with your doctrine-filter?
To be honest I can’t remember what your question on Trent was, and I can’t find it by scrolling through the thread. Sorry.
Mary Kay: Jsy, the question remains, by what criteria to decide when there are differing views of what is the true Gospel.
What criteria did Lydia use?
Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
Lydia paid attention to what was said by Paul. Not just what he wrote. Like St. Paul said, “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us” (2 Thes 2:15).
As I mentioned above, the question is not just where does faith come from. The question is also how do we know what Christ wants us to do and to believe on fundamental points of faith.
SDG: Lydia paid attention to what was said by Paul. Not just what he wrote.
(?)
I said “hear”.
Jay D: What matters is that the truth of the Gospel exists somewhere. If the truth of the Gospel exists somewhere, any given person has a chance to hear it. He or she may hear a hundred false Gospels before hearing the one true one.
Faith does not come from trust in an infallible authority. Faith comes from hearing the true Word of God.
As long as the Gospel exists in our time and someone is preaching it, it will fall on ears. The Lord then opens the hearts of those that hear. That isn’t to say that the hearer can’t steadfastly resist.
Luke 18:17″…I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
What criteria do little children use in deciding what Gospel is true? They don’t use a criteria. Their hearts have not built up resistances to the Lord’s efforts to open them. The kingdom of God is received, not chosen from a list of options. This actually goes to the point of pædobaptism. The kingdom of Heaven is received by us. Why can’t an infant receive it also?
Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
You did. You accurately quoted the text — I was merely emphasizing one of the implications.
You keep talking about where does faith come from. I keep pointing out that the question is not just where does faith come from. The question is also how do we know what Christ wants us to do and to believe on fundamental points of faith.
Jay D,
Faith does not come from trust in an infallible authority. Faith comes from hearing the true Word of God.
Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Romans 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Contrary to what you believe, an authority was established by Christ and we are obligated to hear and obey those who are sent with His authority.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
You know, there ought to be a recognized subset of Godwin’s law relating to the priest abuse crisis. If, in an argument with a Catholic on an unrelated topic (like Sola Scriptura, the authority of the Magisterium or the Pope), anyone dredges up a dog-eared trope like;
“As far as certain wings of “Evangelicalism” accepting homosexuality, what about the Catholic church shuffling around pedophiles from diocese to diocese…”
…they automatically lose the debate.
Can we talk openly about the CLERGY abuse crisis going on in virtually every faith and denomination and not pretend that it is limited to or specially concentrated in Catholic priests?
Can we acknowledge that the shameful practice of covering up abuse is not even in the same ballpark as OFFICIALLY TEACHING that homosexuality is normal and good?
A desperate act, Jeb.
Sorry, that was me above.
Besides, the problem wasn’t pedophiles; the vast majority of cases were predators preying on teen-age boys and young men.
Tim J.,
We should call it Jones’ Law!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Jay D:
I don’t have a ton of time, but briefly:
If I hear 1000 preachers who all claim to have the true gospel, but only one is right, how do I know which one is the true one? I just get a feeling in my heart? Maybe I’m reading too fast but that’s what you seem to be saying. That doesn’t work for me. I can be dead certain and dead wrong at the same time. And you can’t use children as the litmus test. Children believe in monsters under the bed. Are they right?
Megan Elizabeth: If I hear 1000 preachers who all claim to have the true gospel, but only one is right, how do I know which one is the true one?
The Gospel is not unknowable, but it is rather counterintuitive to human wisdom. Human wisdom is untrustworthy. Just hear the Gospel and accept it for what it is.
1 Corinthians 2:14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Here is the Gospel:
John 3:14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Numbers 21:9So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
As for everything else, all the other details, if the way someone is doing something in any way obscures or covers the pure Gospel, they are doing it wrong.
“Just hear the Gospel and accept it for what it is.”
Wouldn’t Mormons say exactly the same for the Book of Mormon? Wouldn’t Muslims for the Q’uran?
“Just believe…”
Here’s an arresting thought;
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21).
Belief isn’t enough.
Jay D,
Like you ignoring those whom Christ sent with His authority. As Tim J. pointed out belief is not enough. Even the demons believe and Satan quotes Sacred Scripture out of context.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“The gospel is counterintuitive to human reason.”
I disagree. Faith transcends reason, but they are not contradictory.
I believe in the Gospel as preached by the Catholic Church. I hear and accept what she teaches. I do not accept what the Lutheran Church proclaims as Gospel because certain interpretations are contradictory to what the Catholic Church teaches. Are you saying that I should simultaneously accept both (even though they are contradictory) simply because they are both proclamations of the Gospel? Again, faith does not ask us to go counter to reason.
Jay D,
You disregard the papacy then make yourself you own pope.
Birds of a feather…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio
J+M+J: Like you ignoring those whom Christ sent with His authority.
Does ignoring those whom Christ [alegedly] sent with His authority obscure:
John 3:14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Numbers 21:9So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
Jay D,
Yes. If you don’t hear those who He sent with His authority, you don’t hear Christ or His Father.
Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Christ gave His Church the authority to bind and loose…even sin.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
If the truth of the Gospel exists somewhere, any given person has a chance to hear it… Just hear the Gospel and accept it for what it is.
“God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars.” – Martin Luther
“God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars.” – Martin Luther
Oh, is THAT why people hug trees?!?!!
Steve DG,
“When they say that the pastorals were authored by St. Paul, that’s a scholarly judgment. Scholarly judgments do not become articles of faith by being widely and unquestioningly held. ”
But where did they say their view on these things was subject to revision? You arbitrarily say that these decisions were “pastoral,” but they didn’t.
Let me give you another example. The catholic church obviously supported Franco’s repressive policies toward prots. Yet after Vatican II, Rome contacted Franco’s government and told them to change its policies (somewhat). Wasn’t that a a change in church teaching?
The death penalty is another example. JP2 preached against it ad nauseam (although not having much to say about priests raping children). And if the Catholic church is going to lecture prots about the supposed lack of holiness in protestantism, then I think the sexual shennanigans of the Roman priestcraft are fair game.
As far as women ministers goes, I think God’s church will oppose this toward the end of time. I would certainly leave any denomination/ecclesial community /churchthat awarded a pectoral cross to someone (such as the Archwhimp of Canterbury) who supported these things. Wouldn’t you?
“…priests raping children…”
As I posted above: “Besides, the problem wasn’t pedophiles; the vast majority of cases werepredators preying on teenage boys and young men.”
He knows this, but, if a lie is a better stick to beat the Church with, he won’t hesitate to use it.
Just over half (50.7%) of all individuals who made allegations of abuse were between the ages of 11-14. The average age of all alleged victims is 12.6. Sounds like a lot of children to me.
Jay D,
Matt: Jay, still waiting for a response on Trent, are you having trouble with your doctrine-filter?
To be honest I can’t remember what your question on Trent was, and I can’t find it by scrolling through the thread. Sorry.
Posted by: Jay D | Sep 10, 2007 6:44:04 AM
You accuse the Council of Trent of violating the unadulterated Gospel. I asked you to cite a canon so that I can demonstrate your error. Obviously you are avoiding responding to it, because you continue to post. I suspect you know you can’t substantiate the allegation.
The majority of victims were post-pubescent males. See catholicleague.com. Click on the right-hand column, under the heading “Lying About The Scandal”.
“Wasn’t that a a change in church teaching?”
No. That was a change in a Church policy. Jeb, you’ve been at this a while, do you not yet understand the difference between a doctrine and a prudential judgment? Or do you just not CARE to understand?
“The death penalty is another example. JP2 preached against it ad nauseam”
Have you read the Catechism on the issue? That is where you will find Church Teaching.
“…if the Catholic church is going to lecture prots about the supposed lack of holiness in protestantism….”
‘Scuse me… what are you talking about? Who and when?
Let me give you another example. The catholic church obviously supported Franco’s repressive policies toward prots. Yet after Vatican II, Rome contacted Franco’s government and told them to change its policies (somewhat). Wasn’t that a a change in church teaching?
No.
In fact, calling that a change in church teaching astounds me with how little you know about what the Church’s authority is.
The majority of victims were post-pubescent males.
According to th USCCB, the majority (50.7%) “were between the ages of 11-14. The average age of all alleged victims is 12.6.”
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident3.pdf
“Boys usually begin to show signs of puberty at about 11 or 12 years of age, although puberty can start as early as age 10 or as late as age 16… Some boys go through puberty in a year, while others take five or six years to mature. Puberty usually lasts three or four years.”
yourhealth.calgaryhealthregion.ca
That would mean most boys are not (fully) post-pubertal until age 14-16. Meanwhile, the average age of the boys according to the USCCB was 12.6.
Anyway you cut it, they were children.
“Anyway you cut it, they were children.”
Of course. How many adult males would allow themselves to be abused by another adult? Call it pedophilia, if you like, it was almost exclusively homosexual in nature.
And then, so what? The same kind of thing has been happening in every denomination, and in all faiths. It even happens regularly (gasp!) in non-religious settings like public schools!
It is a symptom of a sex-obsessed culture, and has not much to do with one religion or another.
How many adult males would allow themselves to be abused by another adult?
Lots.
And then, so what? The same kind of thing has been happening in every denomination, and in all faiths.
Moral relativism.
B’Marv, here’s how it works: First the troll at least pretends to have a point of view, then people feed him.
Matt: You accuse the Council of Trent of violating the unadulterated Gospel. I asked you to cite a canon so that I can demonstrate your error.
Indulgences obscure the Gospel. A “treasury of merit” is incompatible with:
John 3:14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Numbers 21:9So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
Jay D, what do you think an indulgence is?
“Indulgences obscure the Gospel.”
No. Indulgences, properly understood, bring the Gospel into sharper focus.
SDG: Jay D, what do you think an indulgence is?
Remissions of satisfactions?
“Moral relativism.”
How is it you find a mere statement of fact to be “moral relativism”?
I excuse no one. When it comes to child abusers, I say put ’em all UNDER the jail and leave them. I’m only pointing out that those who consider sexual abuse by clerics to be a “Catholic thing” are living in a (very convenient) fantasy world.
I don’t care how you label the abuse. Knock yourself out.
Jay D,
You obscure the Gospel by ignoring the authority of those whom Christ sent to teach all that He commanded. As St. John (John 21:25) makes clear not everything Christ did and said is contained in the Sacred Scriptures:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
You accuse us of obscuring or ignoring the Sacred Scriptures and then turn around and obscure or ignore any verse that does not fit your preconceived notion of Christ teachings.
Please reconcile the verse you keep quoting with the verses the verses below.
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
We cannot and do not live by faith alone as the Sacred Scriptures make clear unless you obscure it or twist to your own destruction.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Jay D: What do you think satisfaction is?
Tim J: B’Marv is just making noise. I know he’s typing, not talking, but it’s still just noise. Clickclickclickclickclick.
SDG: What do you think satisfaction is?
The opportunity to avenge a wrong; vindication.
*bzzzzt*
That is not what satisfaction means in this context. From the Catechism:
This is why you mistakenly think that indulgences impinge on the gospel. You thought it meant avenging a wrong or vindication. Wrong. That was achieved through Christ’s sacrifice and received through absolution.
OK then.
d. Compensation for injury or loss; reparation.
But the Catechism — which points out that Christ “alone expiated our sins once for all” — understands satisfaction as “recovering one’s full spiritual health” through “fruits that befit repentance.” Is it contrary to the Gospel to seek to recover full spiritual health through fruits that befit repentance, seeing that Christ alone expiated our sins once for all?
SDG: Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins.
Why? For what? What happens if a sinner fails to “recover his full spiritual health by doing something”?
I’m happy to answer, but perhaps you will indulge me with your answer first. What would you say to the spiritually sickly believer who doesn’t bother to bring forth works befitting repentance, and so recover his spiritual health?
“B’Marv is just making noise.”
I know, but it can’t be stated often enough that, (A) Surprisingly enough, the clergy abuse problem (and the accompanying cover-up response) is not specially limited to Catholic priests or Bishops… and (B) It has nothing whatever to do with Church teaching or with the Church’s historical claims to be the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Christ founded.
There.
I agree, Tim. But when B’Marv starts pulling out non sequiturs like “Moral relativism” or “Who says Laura is here?” I think we can safely keep our bait barrels nailed shut. :‑)
SDG: What would you say to the spiritually sickly believer who doesn’t bother to bring forth works befitting repentance, and so recover his spiritual health?
Yes.
You would say “Yes”? Or you would quote Romans 7? I asked you what you would say.
Jesus said, “Bear fruit that befits repentance” (Mt 3:8). St. Paul likewise preached not only that men should “repent and turn to God,” but also that they should “perform deeds worthy of their repentance” (Acts 26:20).
You asked me, “Why? For what?” Why? For what? Why don’t you ask Jesus and St. Paul? They said it, I didn’t. What do you think they would have said if someone asked them “Why? What for?”
You also asked, “What happens if a sinner fails to ‘recover his full spiritual health by doing something’?”
The writer to the Hebrews, at the end of a long paragraph on discipline or punishment, and how God disciplines every son he receives, adds, “Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:13-14; cf. vv3ff).
Everything that is lame will either be healed or put out of joint. There is a holiness without which no one will see the Lord, and we must strive for it. It is not acquired without rigor, either in this life or the next. There is no spiritual infirmity in heaven. Every infirmity will be healed, whether in this life or in the next, or else be unto death.
SDG: Why don’t you ask Jesus and St. Paul? They said it, I didn’t. What do you think they would have said if someone asked them “Why? What for?”
Love.
Romans 13:8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments…are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
SDG: Every infirmity will be healed, whether in this life or in the next, or else be unto death.
I agree with the “every infirmity will be healed” part, but what does that have to do with indulgences?
Temporal punishment due to sin that has been forgiven?
Why did Jesus teach us to pray “forgive us our debts” if there is still a debt of punishment remaining after forgiveness?
Psalm 103:12″as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”
Besides, the wages of sin is death, no more, no less.
How do the merits of Christ and the Saints work into the equation of an individual’s infirmities being healed?
Certainly. For instance, God forgave David his sin with Bathsheba, but there was still a temporal consequence — David suffered the loss of his child: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die” (2 Sam. 12:13-14)
God forgave the Israelites in the wilderness, but nevertheless punished them with forty years wandering and would not allow them to enter the Promised Land: “I have pardoned, according to your word; but truly, as I live… none of the men who… have not hearkened to my voice, shall see the land which I swore to give to their fathers” (Num. 14:13-23). Even Moses received a temporal punishment for a forgiven sin: He was not able to lead the people into the promised land (Num. 20:12; cf. 27:12-14).
If one of my children breaks one of my rules and later repents, I will certainly forgive him or her, but it doesn’t mean there won’t be punishment. I’m sure you would agree that if a pastor commits a sufficiently serious offense and later repents, the church should forgive him, but that doesn’t mean that there should not be a punishmnent or consequence of removing him from ministry.
Hebrews 12 assures us that God disciplines/chastises/punishes (all three words appear) every son he receives. Do you think those punishments are all for unforgiven sins?
You’re adding to scripture. St. Paul doesn’t say “no more, no less”, and the passages above, including Hebrews 12, contradict it. Anyway, what about sickness and infirmity and injury? Aren’t those temporal consequences of sin too?
As for death itself, that itself is a temporal consequence for sin that still remains even after our sins have been forgiven. Otherwise, why do we have to die? After all, Jesus took the punishment for our sin, right? So if the wages of sin is death, then we shouldn’t have to die. And if we do have to die, then we still have temporal consequences of sin to bear.
The word “debt” or “trespass” there refers first of all to the guilt of sin, which is non-temporal and is separates us from God and eternal life. Of course we can also pray and hope to be spared the temporal penalty or consequences of our sins — but we may or may not.
The same way that the the infirmity of the centurion’s servant was healed in response to the great faith of his master, or that many individuals in the NT were healed because of the faith and action of others. God pours out blessings on some for their own faith and virtue, but he may also do it because of the faith and virtue of others.
One person can please God, and it has the effect of bringing blessings on another person. Abraham’s descendants inherited the promised land because of Abraham’s faith and obedience. God may even spare some people the temporal consequences due to them as a reward to other people, as for the sake of David God deferred taking away the kingdom from Solomon, and as God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of fifty, twenty or even ten righteous men.
Jay,
great question regarding indulgences, I have two scriptures for you to meditate upon and be enlightened by. Clearly they do not prove indulgences, but they certainly suggest the possibility, thus refuting the accusation of violating the Gospel:
1 Corinthians 3:15If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
So, the man shall be saved as through fire dure to his poor works. We call this saving fire “purgatory”. A man must be cleansed before he can be in heaven, and so this cleansing must take place prior to his entry.
Matthew 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Christ has given the power to bind and loose on earth in heaven, and that authority is directed singularly to Peter. So, is it possible Christ gave this important duty to a mortal man and thus deny it’s power to the Church after his death? Of course not, that authority must be carried on through his successors.
Given that authority, the Popes have seen fit to grant remission of this temporal punishment (cleansing as through fire) in recognition of good works performed. He grants that these remissions may be accepted for oneself, or by an intention to transfer to another who is among the living or those still being cleansed. There is an important condition that the sins must have been previously forgiven by the power of the Holy Spirit.
So this doesn’t prove that indulgences exist, but it does clearly demonstrate that they are not opposed to Scripture.
Anything else?
God Bless,
Matt