tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post9113185433174181857..comments2023-07-24T09:45:37.392-04:00Comments on Barque of Peter: Open Forum 1Gregoryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-25948005151392696292008-02-19T23:26:00.000-05:002008-02-19T23:26:00.000-05:00After having a good heart-to-heart chat with my ex...After having a good heart-to-heart chat with my ex-coauthor, Chris, regarding this Open Forum, and the way things went in it, I've decided to declare it officially "closed". If I can figure out a way to disallow new comments without hiding the old ones, I'll do that. Otherwise, I dunno.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, there'll be another Open Forum up after I do the five Luminous Mysteries. Oh yes, it's high time I got back to those!<BR/><BR/>God bless<BR/><BR/>50 comments--not bad.<BR/>GregoryGregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-4299747812095580582008-02-19T15:19:00.000-05:002008-02-19T15:19:00.000-05:00Whoops, apparently I missed some...Your life under...Whoops, apparently I missed some...<BR/><BR/><I>Your life under God, Gregory, does not need to be certified by the Magisterium. What you are convicted of from Scripture, conscience, and history do not need the emblem of Church officials to validate them.</I><BR/><BR/>Rather, my conviction from Scripture results from my proper or improper understanding of Scripture. My conscience must be formed--it does not automatically determine right from wrong. And my understanding of history can all too easily be biased or revisionist (and more, in my particular case, history as I have understood it has led me <I>to</I> the Church).<BR/><BR/>Insofar as these things depend on the right understanding of Scripture (and at least the first two points do), I need a guide in understanding it, and I would prefer one that can't get it wrong, wouldn't you? In the meantime, I'm left with my opinion, which is really no different than where I started, except that my opinion might happen to be different.<BR/><BR/><I>In much the same way, the Sola Scripturist does not necessarily need the certification of more people in higher offices to tell him whether God guided him or not.</I><BR/><BR/>But when the Sola Scripturist meets up with another Sola Scripturist who disagrees with him, who decides? And what if one Sola Scripturist goes so far as to view the beliefs of the other Sola Scripturist as outright heretical (like if you met a Unitarian)? What arbitrates? What if that Unitarian has the unlikely quality of being smarter than you, and is able to reason through Scripture in a way you are unable to confute, although you still know him to be wrong--or would you still know him to be wrong? What prevents the sola scripturist in such a situation from being "tossed to and fro on every wind of doctrine" (cf. Eph 4:14)?<BR/><BR/><I>Those resources are certainly available within Protestantism, and a person is wise to avail his/herself of them. However, those authoritative resources are not ends in themselves, as the Magisterium appears to be. Only Scripture is the final authority, the source and norm of the Christian faith.</I><BR/><BR/>According to what is Scripture so named? The Bible itself nowhere states it. The ancient Christians nowhere adhered to it nor taught it. In fact, it wasn't even possible until Luther's own day, nor even practicable truly in our own day.<BR/><BR/>So you deny that the Church's Magisterium, that is, her Christ-appointed leadership, is an authoritative end, athough Scripture seems to certainly imply it, if not fully stating it, and even though the historic Church has always maintained it as such, and substitute it for a tradition that sets up Scripture in their place, although no one had ever named such a thing until Martin Luther.<BR/><BR/>Yet, you make statements like the above devoid of any argumentation. This is why I told you on the phone that I was somewhat disappointed with the calibre of your latest responses. You're better than this.<BR/><BR/><I>Everything else is peripheral, including the Magisterium or the lone interpreter.</I><BR/><BR/>It was the Magisterium that definitively handed us the Scripture, decided what belonged to Scripture, and was commissioned to faithfully teach the religion contained within the Scripture. To call them "peripheral" seems a bit at odds with reality. Scripture itself doesn't treat the role of the Apostle and Bishop in a peripheral way, but considering that Jesus never told the Apostles to write books, but rather to found a Church, one could argue that the Bible itself is "peripheral" and simply an accident of history--Paul and the other Apostles couldn't travel anymore because they were locked up, so they wrote letters instead. Now, <I>I</I> wouldn't make that argument myself, but I could make it with more force than you can make the Magisterium out to be peripheral.<BR/><BR/>God bless<BR/>GregoryGregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-68564264737316260322008-02-19T14:57:00.000-05:002008-02-19T14:57:00.000-05:00I'm not even sure where to begin responding. You w...<I>I'm not even sure where to begin responding. You wrote so much that I'm a little daunted at the prospect of copy/pasting this-that-and-the-other quote, point, or quip just to make a comment. That, and I don't have the time. Too many premiums on my time as it is. Sorry.</I><BR/><BR/>Understandable. But I want to be thorough. Unfortunately, it's a side-effect.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm just going to pull some things off the top of my head that stood out from your posts, Gregory, and comment on it.</I><BR/><BR/>I notice that some of my questions to you (particularly revolving around your cognitive dissonance point, but others as well) didn't stand out from my post, since you never addressed them.<BR/><BR/><I>I wrote: <B>Gregory, Hidden One, take up the issue of doctrinal infallibility. What would happen to your line of thinking if it could be reasonable shown that doctrinal infallibility is not reasonably pronounced on human understandings of Scripture and history?</B><BR/><BR/>To which you replied (in part): No one has made the claim that Infallibility extends to understandings of history (or science, for that matter, despite your oft-repeated non sequitur about ancient Christians believing the earth was flat). Infallibility extends only to official declarations of doctrine pertaining to Faith and Morals. If we rephrase your question in light of what Doctrinal Infallibility does cover, I'll proceed to answer your questions.<BR/><BR/>Drawing attention to the oft-repeated non sequitur, as you put it, was not an attempt to draw a parallel between cosmology and Mariology. In fact, it was a parallel meant to illustrate the point that what we believe is not necessarily always what is. Or, to put it differently, I can believe with all earnestness and sincerity that my wife has always enjoyed Metallica, but eventually, through some means of communication, I'm going to find out that that's simply not the case. In the end, what I so genuinely believed was simply untrue. Our beliefs don't dictate reality. So as far as I can see, my use of the example of early Christians believing the earth was flat was not a non sequitur, but an example used to illustrate a fact: that our beliefs can be mistaken, no matter how well we cling to them, or attempt to justify them.</I><BR/><BR/>But it is a <I>non sequitur</I> precisely because we deny that a belief is believed on the basis, as you put it, because it was believed before us (which isn't the basis on which we believe in Christianity, btw). That is not the definition of Tradition, and I thought you knew that. Tradition amounts to the received teachings from the Apostles, as transmitted through the bishops as reliable witnesses, who expounded on those beliefs, fleshing them out into a greater understanding without changing the kernel. In this regard, it was not an issue of how many people believed it, but of its faithful transmission through the ages.<BR/><BR/>And if you reject that as a binding source of authority, then I really don't see how a "traditional" Protestant is any better off than a "solo scripturist"--especially when a "traditional" Protestant such as yourself isn't even sure how to define "tradition".<BR/><BR/><I>You also said: Ultimately, I would lose Christianity, since Jesus would have failed to be able to keep His promise that the Gates of Hell would not overcome the Church--for if the Church can err, then it has erred.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'm just not sure how to understand the kind of conclusion that you've made here, but my immediate thought is that you've missed the connecting ingredients between a) the Church making a mistake, and c) Hell storming, and destroying the Church. What happened to "b"? Have you committed the fallacy of the excluded middle? From my vantage it seems so, but before I simply accuse you of that, I'd like to invite you to fill in the gap, if indeed there is one.</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for the opportunity. I perhaps left out the middle because I assumed it to be self-evident. My apologies.<BR/><BR/>A: Jesus promised to establish a Church, which could never be overcome by the Devil (metonymised in Matthew 16 as "the Gates of Hell"). That Church is defined as the pillar and support of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15).<BR/><BR/>B: All falsehood, lies, and error come from the Devil (cf. 2 Tim 3 and 1 John 4:1-6 with John 8:44). Therefore an erring Church a) doesn't fit the Scriptural definition of "pillar and foundation of truth" and b) has been overcome at some point by the gates of hell in formally embracing its error.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, C: If the Church is capable of embracing formal error and heresy--that is, if it is not infallible--then it has in fact done so, that is, formally embraced error. Since Protestantism comes 1500 years late on the scene, and each version of it denies that it has things completely right, it is safe to assume that each version has erred in some fashion--or else the one sparkling gem of Christianity is hidden amid thousands of worthless pebbles. If not the Protestants, we can discout Eastern Orthodoxy since it has historically and formally embraced error as doctrine, and while it has double back and rejected that error, without the surety of knowing the Truth (which is evidenced by their embracing error in the first place), we cannot be sure that their current stance is without error.<BR/><BR/>That leaves us with the Catholic Church--and if infallibility is untrue, then even if the Church had been preserved completely correct in everything, it would have erred tragically in defining itself to be infallible, since infallibility is impossible in this scenario.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, either there is one true Church without error because it is preserved infallible, and the Catholic Church is the only one in the running since it is the only one who therefore hasn't erred on the issue of infallibility; or there is no infallibility and all forms of Christianity are subject to error, are not the pillar and support of Truth, and Jesus failed to make good on His word.<BR/><BR/>As such, not only does the Church go, but Christ along with it--unless you can show me a Protestant sect that a) actually did exist in the early Church, b) is right on each of its doctrines, including c) the issue of infallibility, the fact that it doesn't exist despite the reality of the church saying so seeming to have been blessed with just such a gift.<BR/><BR/><I>"'Infalliblity' doesn't mean we're always completely right--it simply means we're prevented from being utterly wrong."<BR/><BR/>I glossed over this the first time I read through your comments, but it was brought back to my attention today. So my question here is: does this translate into, 'Infallibility means we're not necessarily wrong'?</I><BR/><BR/>I think my use of the term "utterly" might have been confusing. The Doctrine of Infallibility, as understood by the Catholic Church, states that when the Pope, or the College of Bishops together with the Pope, make a pronouncement on Faith or Morals, with the intention of such pronouncement being made out of the office of the Pope as successor to Peter and possessor of the Keys (i.e. <I>ex cathedra</I>), he (or they) is prevented from binding on the faithful anything that would constitute formal heresy by the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>That is, whatever the Dogma is that is so pronounced, it is true--though that truth may still not be fully understood and later generations may have more of it revealed--all without contradicting or overturning that earlier truth.<BR/><BR/>Hence, Infallibility doesn't mean that whatever the Pope says is true--only what he says <I>ex cathedra</I> as it pertains to faith and morals (which is why I keep insisting, for example, that the flat-earth thing is a non sequitur, since it doesn't pertain to faith or morals, but to natural science). Further, Infallibility doesn't mean that whatever is defined in such situations is the absolute fullness of the truth about that subject. It is the truth, but the Holy Spirit may continue guiding us into the fullness of truth regarding that doctrine.<BR/><BR/>Thus my statement, "'Infalliblity' doesn't mean we're always completely right--it simply means we're prevented from being utterly wrong," should be understood this way:<BR/><BR/>"doesn't mean we're always...right", that is, infallibility only attaches when it is an <I>ex cathedra</I> statement pertaining to faith and morals. A statement outside that scope could very well be wrong without affecting the infallibility doctrine.<BR/><BR/>"doesn't mean we're...completely right", that is, there may be more we will come to understand regarding a particular doctrine as the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church, or, maybe that particular dogma is the fullness of truth on that partucular subject. In either case, the truth we know is no less true because we don't fully comprehend it, any more than God Himself is less true simply because we can't fully comprehend Him.<BR/><BR/>"we're prevented from being utterly wrong", that is, the Church is divinely prevented from teaching formal heresy or error as binding on the faithful.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm pretty sure 'infallibility' as you've used it doesn't come across as such by way of classic definitions of the term.</I><BR/><BR/>The way I've used it is in line, as far as I can tell from my studies, with the Vatican 1pronouncement on infallibility from 1870. That is where the Church 'infallibly' codified the dogma, and therefore must be where we draw our understanding of its usage within the Church.<BR/><BR/><I><B>You are still left with a chicken-and-egg paradox, and a subjective evaluation of which traditions interpret Scripture, and whether Scripture bears out that tradition's interpretation. If this subjectivity did not exist, then there would not be the myriad denominations in existence today. Unless something has the authority to definitively and actively say "This is the truth; walk ye in it," the subjectivism will continue to circle around itself, and the only conclusions that will be drawn are what the interpreter has already brought with him to the text (since we all bring with us something to the text).</B><BR/><BR/>So, if we all bring something with us to the text, and that is the danger of subjectivism, who is your Magisterium to make official pronouncements on anything lest in doing so they're willing to contradict their 2000 year old principle of having the 'authoritative' final say on a doctrine? That is, a bunch of doctrinal watch-dogs come to the Text (and any surrounding documents on whatever's in question) and hammer out a collective subjectivism concerning a doctrine, and voila! we have a definitive, authoritative, and thereby binding pronouncement on a theological issue? Nothing has changed in the scenario you present, Gregory, except that there are a bunch of ecclesiastical cronies calculating on a doctrine that a single, peevish Protestant can look into. If that's the case, the Catholic Church doesn't get to be more right because they have more people pouring over a doctrine than the arm-chair Protestant theologian sitting at home working through the same doctrine himself. More does not make 'righter'. It just makes more people bringing more selves to the table; more subjectivism.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm honestly baffled at how you came to this description of the Magisterium. It sounds more worthy of Jacob Allee than of you.<BR/><BR/>The Magisterium is not more authoritative than the everyday layperson because there are more of them making a decision on a teaching of the Church (after all, the Pope has in his office the sum total authority of the Magisterium). The authority stems from the Keys given by Christ to Peter and thereby to his successor, the bishop of Rome, and, with him, the college of Bishops. And again, we can trust that authority due to the charism of infallibility given through the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with how many people vote, but who those people are, and whether they were invested with the authority to do so. We were not all given this authority, nor the accompanying charism.<BR/><BR/><I><B>Jude 3 seems to contradict you on that point. That is, there is a faith "once for all handed down". We do not fully comprehend the breadth and heighth and depth of it, and it is in that regard that we still grow in our understanding of the Truth as the Holy Spirit guides us into that Truth. This is what produces development in doctrine. But that doctrine and its development are not sporadic or subjective things, but are, as Jesus promised, "guided".</B><BR/><BR/>Not following you here, friend. So we've got this faith that's been handed down. Great. With you so far. Then you state that we don't fully understand it. Fine. But then you admit that we "grow in our understanding of the Truth as the Holy Spirit guides us into that Truth." Which you then go on to note is not 'subjective' but 'guided. So am I to take from what you've written that being guided by the Holy Spirit wipes out any possibility of human sinfulness messing with our understanding of what we're being guided into?</I><BR/><BR/>First of all, when I say "we", I don't mean all Christians as individuals are each so guided, which might be causing some confusion. I mean "we" collectively as the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" under the Bishop of Rome.<BR/><BR/>As far as infallibility goes--that is, the guidance of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all Truth and protects the Church from formally promulgating error--yes, it works in spite of human sinfulness. That's the whole point. It's an <I>ex opere operato</I> type of deal. If the Pope's infallibility was dependent upon his sinlessness, then it most certainly would not exist! In the same way, the Bible is inerrant and fully and infallibly God's Word despite the sinfulness of its human authors. The Spirit of God was able to inspire the authors of Sacred Scripure in spite of their sinfulness to give us the inerrant Word of God in the Bible; why then is it an impossible leap to believe that that <I>same</I> Spirit of God could similarly inspire (in a lesser way, since Scripture was Revelation, but what the Church does today is not) and prevent the human members of the Magisterium from teaching error, to give us the infallible doctrines of the Church? There is absolutely nothing in logic to cause us to embrace one and not the other. It is only faith and obedience that are wanting.<BR/><BR/><I>And if that's the case, are you suggesting that the Magisterium -- being guided by the Holy Spirit, of course -- is perhaps holier than us bench-warmers who scratch our heads trying to make ends meet on this-that-or-the-other doctrine of faith?</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely not. I've just taken pains to deny that above.<BR/><BR/><I>If we're not part of the old boys club (the Magisterium) we're less likely to know what our faith entails?</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't say that, either. I simply have said that the Magisterium is invested with the Authority to so teach, and with the gift of Infallibility to make sure that teaching is true.<BR/><BR/><I>Doesn't that seem like a bit of a practical gnosticism to you: they're the Magisterium so they know better; they know stuff we couldn't know 'cause God doesn't 'guide' us like that. He gives us partial truths and reserves the bigger portions of truth for the higher-up Mucky-Mucks.</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely not. Gnosticism taught a secret knowledge that was not available to the rest of us. The Magisterium, on the other hand, simply safeguards from error the truths that we already know, and is bound to disseminate truth to all the world. There is nothing secret about it, nor special. If it is gnosticism, it is gnosticism on the grounds only that you don't like the idea that a particular person or group of people have a particular authority over others within the Church. I'm sure that can't be your problem, or you wouldn't argue so violently for biblically-based authority with your friend Tim. The question simply revolves, then, around who has that authority.<BR/><BR/><I>Sorry to sound so crass, Gregory. I'm not upset at you, nor have you offended me. What offends me is the possible implications I see in Catholic reasoning based on what you've written. It's nothing personal. And if it was, I'd give you a call. ;)</I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. Likewise, what offends me in what you have written is my own apparent inability to be clearer in what I have tried to say.<BR/><BR/><I><B>How does Scripture (an inanimate book) examine itself? Ignoring that and accepting the obvious intended meaning that the student of Scripture reexamines it in light of the traditions, and showing their veracity, the question still remains, how does the Sola Scripturist avoid the subjectivism that leads to the brackets at the end of the hypothesis: whether right or wrong?</B><BR/><BR/>First, Scripture is living (Heb. 4:12), so God uses what He says to interpret what He says.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you're making an exegetical error here. If you look at the pronouns in verse 13, they're all personal: "He", "Him". That these pronouns refer back to "The Word of God" in verse 12 seems to be the only conclusion available from the sentence structure of the text. Thus, the Word of God referred to seems not to be the Bible itself, but rather Christ, whom John calls "The Word". Once that was pointed out to me, I read and re-read that passage again and again, and don't see how another conclusion can be reached.<BR/><BR/>If my conclusion is right, then your argument falls apart rather quickly.<BR/><BR/><I>We are just the agents through whom He speaks via the written word. Hence when we read Scripture and we need understanding, God can guide us in understanding by giving us more of His Word as the interpretation for the Scripture we need interpreted.</I><BR/><BR/>This is true, to a point. But how do we know when our understanding has been led by God, and when it has been led by our preconceptions, or worse, by the Devil's influence? After all, two devout Christians arriving at opposite conclusions to, say, the charismatic question that I outlined above, would both claim God's leading.<BR/><BR/>Also, what "more of His Word" are you referring to?<BR/><BR/><I>If the issue were as simple as 'can paper speak for itself' (as your quip, "How does Scripture [and inanimate book] examine itself?" intimates) we'd be dealing with a quirky topic not fit for theology.</I><BR/><BR/>But that's precisely my point. Even your above explanation doesn't satisfactorily address my question regarding how Scripture interprets Scripture in any way that we are sure we have the right answer. Suneal's and my debate over the Perpetual Virginity of Mary illustrated that quite clearly. He saw a passage clearly saying No, while I saw one clearly saying Yes. Which passage interprets the other? When we drew from further texts, neither conclusion was satisfactorily reached by either party. And so on for pretty much every topic over which Protestantism is divided among itself.<BR/><BR/><I>More Scripture is not a casuistry manual, so it doesn't set out the how-to's of it's own self-interpretation. We can infer rightly, however, that because it is living and active that God is speaking through it directly to those that read it, and that it is uniquely applicable (at times) to individual people despite traditional interpretations to the contrary.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, denying your interpretation of Heb 4:12, another example which I could raise to support my above case, btw, I agree that Scripture can take on an individual meaning other than the Traditional one--but that individual meaning can only supplement the Traditional one, and only applies to the individual to whom it is given. God called me into ministry with Ezekiel 3:17--but I cannot therefore make dogmatic pronouncements about that verse's application to everyone else.<BR/><BR/>The point in question is who has the right to interpret Scripture in such a way as to make doctrines that are binding for the entire Church, not, Is God able to speak to me personally through my daily devotions as I read His word?<BR/><BR/><I>Traditional interpretations are a good bead on a doctrine, but as you noted above: "We do not fully comprehend the breadth and heighth and depth of it, and it is in that regard that we still grow in our understanding of the Truth as the Holy Spirit guides us into that Truth. This is what produces development in doctrine." Even without a Magisterium, I might add.</I><BR/><BR/>But whatever growth there is cannot contradict what has come before--otherwise, that "growth" is a malignant tumour.<BR/><BR/>And if that new, fuller understanding is to become official dogma within the Catholic Church, it must be officially recognised by the Magisterium. Otherwise, I have no contention with your point.<BR/><BR/><I>Second, the Sola Scripturist, if he is honest, will admit that he doesn't have all the right answers. But the implication from that is that he doesn't have all the wrong ones ipso facto. He doesn't even know if he has all the right or wrong answers in any ultimate sense. So can he avoid subjectivism? No. Does that mean that all parsing of Scripture must then terminate on 'right' or 'wrong'? No. But it certainly doesn't mean that believing Sola Scriptura is a strong working principle is equivalent to being a lone-ranger Christian and re-building Christendom one doctrine at a time!</I><BR/><BR/>It does when the question is where does the Church get her doctrine, and not how does the individual Christian grow in faith.<BR/><BR/><I>Holding to Sola Scriptura is a practical measure to insure that come what may, the source and norm for all understanding of the Christian life can be relied on from one source: Scripture.</I><BR/><BR/>Scripture can only be the source and norm for all understanding provided that Scripture itself is properly understood. Since the Sola Scripturist cannot be sure if he has properly understood Scripture, it can be no sure source or norm for anything. This is precisely where Sola Scriptura fails. The authoritative source can only be authoritative if it is properly understood--and if something is to be properly understood, it must be known to the learner that he has properly understood. Thus, Scripture, which cannot speak other than what is printed on the page, cannot explain itself when the person reading it makes an error in his thinking regarding what he has just read.<BR/><BR/><I>Furthermore, having a Magisterium doesn't secure you against the question of 'right or wrong?' It just puts the question up front a step sooner.</I><BR/><BR/>It does secure you against the uncertainty of misunderstanding, however, and that's the point. Since the Magisterium is a living voice, it can repeat, reexplain, and reteach what has been difficult to understand. That is why Catholicism embraces three legs of a stool, since Scripture and Tradition, left to themselves, both amount to text on a page subject to the interpretation and misinterpretation of the reader. The Magisterium, on the other hand, can actively guide the faithful in times of question regarding certain issues.<BR/><BR/><I>You, subjective Gregory, still have to decide whether you're going to accept what the Magisterium says whether it's right or wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>When I put my faith in the infallibility of the Magisterium, it is no different, nor any less logical, than my putting my faith in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. We all must make the decision to do so. The Bible is no more self-evidently God's Word than is the Magisterium.<BR/><BR/><I>And that's what makes you Catholic, and me not. You decide what's right based on what the Magisterium says is right; I decide what's right based on what I think Scripture tells me is right. And once you face God at the final judgment, Gregory, the Magisterium isn't going to play ersatz for you. You'll have to face God on your own, bud. And if the Magisterium was wrong about something, and God questions you about it, Gregory, you won't be able to get away with, "well, I believed it 'cause the Magisterium told me so."</I><BR/><BR/>I might disagree with you there. My answer would be such: "Lord God, I believed You put a Church in place to be the pillar and foundation of the truth, and, trusting the Church I believed You gave me, I was led astray by my sincere intention to be obedient to the Church that is Your Body." <BR/><BR/>You, on the other hand, would say, "Lord, I believed that You didn't give anyone any authority over me except the Bible alone, even though the Bible doesn't actaully teach that, but teaches the existence of such authority. I put myself in the position of that authority in order to seek You."<BR/><BR/>I don't know, Chris. I at least seem to have the virtues of humility and obedience informing my decision, as well as the virtue of faith which we both share, but place in different things. If I am damned, I will be damned for sincerely trying to follow God where I believed He led me--to His Church. If you are damned, it will be for the same reason, but a different application. Thus I fail to see how your point makes any difference, or puts you and sola scripturists in a better position. I'm sorry if that offends you at all.<BR/><BR/><I>The point is: you've put your lot in with a group of teachers, and you trust them to tell you what the truth is. That's fine overall. But let's not cast illusions that because you've done so you now have some greater force to appeal to than the Scripture that I, or any other Protestant reads. We're all relying on the same Holy Spirit to guide us, and we're all deciding in our human weakness to believe what we've been guided to, or not.</I><BR/><BR/>Chris, you, and the rest of Protestantism, can't even agree with the historic Church about what even belongs in Scripture. And if the same Holy Spirit is in fact guiding, whence all the division? If the Holy Spirit has guided Protestants through their use of Sola Scriptura, then Protestantism <I>should</I> be united. But Sola Scriptura doesn't unite. It has done nothing but divide--a point which you have never attempted to satisfactorily answer me on, as far as I can recall.<BR/><BR/>You like to, instead, say that Catholicism is divided as well--but it's not. Not in the same way. There are dissenters, sure, who kick against the goads of Catholic teaching, but in doing so, they are being disobedient, not disunified, in the same way as when I sin, I'm not disunified from the Church, I am disobedient.<BR/><BR/>Protestantism, guided by Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, has fallen into division not out of disobedience, but obedience, to their interpretations of the text. Obedience to all texts, I might point out, except 1 Cor 1:10-17 and 3:1-4. I have even heard such divisions justified by equating each denomination with a unique part of the Body of Christ, à la 1 Cor 12--as though our differences were simply matters of personal taste or the ministering of particular needs!<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the Magisterium says X is wrong, or Y is sin, and those who do not like it aren't dividing the Church, but are rather simply cutting themselves off from the faith.<BR/><BR/><I>I wanted to add one further point to the idea of Sola Scriptura, Gregory, a quote from a theologian I respect.<BR/><BR/>"Since Holy Scripture is God's Word, it does not ask the Pope or any other theologizing individual for its credentials, but through the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is inseparably connected with it, the Word creates the very faith which recognizes it as God's Word. The works of God in the realm of nature present an analogous case. They attest themselves as divine works. They do not need to be certified as such by the naturalists." (F. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics v. I, page 5)</I><BR/><BR/>And I agree with that, as far as it goes. However, the pagans saw the same works of nature and misunderstood them as the ends in themselves, and worshipped them as divine. In an analogous way, Scripture, while accepted as God's word, and even perhaps inspiring faith of itself (though, certainly, not always, since there are many out there who have read the Bible devoid of faith), can still misunderstand that very faith and fall into serious error.<BR/><BR/>After all, groups like the Unitarians and the Jesus Only Pentecostals have the same Bible you do, and still deny the Trinity.<BR/><BR/>Scripture is definitely a good thing--even a great and wonderful thing. But it is not for that reason the only good thing--nor the only necessary thing.<BR/><BR/>God bless<BR/>Gregory<BR/><BR/>(And, when we return--whenever that will be--we'll continue to reply to the back posts....)<BR/><BR/>Your life under God, Gregory, does not need to be certified by the Magisterium. What you are convicted of from Scripture, conscience, and history do not need the emblem of Church officials to validate them. In much the same way, the Sola Scripturist does not necessarily need the certification of more people in higher offices to tell him whether God guided him or not. Those resources are certainly available within Protestantism, and a person is wise to avail his/herself of them. However, those authoritative resources are not ends in themselves, as the Magisterium appears to be. Only Scripture is the final authority, the source and norm of the Christian faith. Everything else is peripheral, including the Magisterium or the lone interpreter.Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-75739045746757106552008-02-19T12:12:00.000-05:002008-02-19T12:12:00.000-05:00Alright, so, I've now read the Encyclical The Imma...Alright, so, I've now read the Encyclical <I>The Immaculate Conception</I>, as well as the Constitution <I>Ineffabilis Deus</I> (which can be found <A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>), and I am a bit confused about why you would "have no doubt now that there is a lot of messed up stuff going on about Mary." I saw nothing in either document that isn't pretty much oft-stated Catholic doctrine. Perhaps if you thought that the encyclical was an infallible document, I could see concern, since it is simply a letter to bishops acknowledging their desire for the Dogma to be finally pronounced as such. Beyond that, I fail to see your problem. Specifics?<BR/><BR/>Okay, I'm off now to respond to your earlier four posts from this past weekend...Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-65876437230361710262008-02-19T11:21:00.000-05:002008-02-19T11:21:00.000-05:00H1, thanks. I like it too :)Chris, before I go ba...H1, thanks. I like it too :)<BR/><BR/>Chris, before I go back and tackle everything you've just written (after which I'll go back and continue to tackle all the rest of what's here), I just wanted to mention that no, I haven't yet read Pope Pius IX's encyclical "The Immaculate Conception". I'm off to do that right now.<BR/><BR/>I will answer your question, though. An Encyclical is not a binding document (i.e. infallible), though, since it comes from the pope, it is worthy of our attention and respect.<BR/><BR/>In the case of the Immaculate Conception, the Dogma was not defined in Pius IX's encyclical, but in his Constitution <I>Ineffibalis Deus</I>, which is a dogmatic and therefore infallible decree.<BR/><BR/>Now I'm off to read The Immaculate Conception, and, if I can find it, <I>Ineffibalis Deus</I> as well.Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-2938376443558235152008-02-18T23:45:00.000-05:002008-02-18T23:45:00.000-05:00So, anyone here actually read Pope Pius IX Encycli...So, anyone here actually read Pope Pius IX Encyclical "The Immaculate Conception" of February 2nd, 1849?<BR/><BR/>I have no doubt now that there is a lot of messed up stuff going on about Mary.<BR/><BR/>By the way, isn't this considered one of the infallible decrees of the Roman Catholic Church?Kane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-9185272510936073652008-02-17T15:02:00.000-05:002008-02-17T15:02:00.000-05:00On a less theological note, Gregory, your new disp...On a less theological note, Gregory, your new display pic is intense. *thumbsupHidden Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042188431683942338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-11328028136052387952008-02-15T23:19:00.000-05:002008-02-15T23:19:00.000-05:00I wanted to add one further point to the idea of S...I wanted to add one further point to the idea of Sola Scriptura, Gregory, a quote from a theologian I respect.<BR/><BR/><I>"Since Holy Scripture is God's Word, it does not ask the Pope or any other theologizing individual for its credentials, but through the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is inseparably connected with it, the Word creates the very faith which recognizes it as God's Word. The works of God in the realm of nature present an analogous case. They attest themselves as divine works. They do not need to be certified as such by the naturalists."</I> (F. Pieper, <B>Christian Dogmatics</B> v. I, page 5)<BR/><BR/>Your life under God, Gregory, does not need to be certified by the Magisterium. What you are convicted of from Scripture, conscience, and history do not need the emblem of Church officials to validate them. In much the same way, the Sola Scripturist does not necessarily need the certification of more people in higher offices to tell him whether God guided him or not. Those resources are certainly available within Protestantism, and a person is wise to avail his/herself of them. However, those authoritative resources are not ends in themselves, as the Magisterium appears to be. Only Scripture is the final authority, the source and norm of the Christian faith. Everything else is peripheral, including the Magisterium or the lone interpreter.Kane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-61665730943910928142008-02-15T22:01:00.000-05:002008-02-15T22:01:00.000-05:00You are still left with a chicken-and-egg paradox,...<B>You are still left with a chicken-and-egg paradox, and a subjective evaluation of which traditions interpret Scripture, and whether Scripture bears out that tradition's interpretation. If this subjectivity did not exist, then there would not be the myriad denominations in existence today. Unless something has the authority to definitively and actively say "This is the truth; walk ye in it," the subjectivism will continue to circle around itself, and the only conclusions that will be drawn are what the interpreter has already brought with him to the text (since we all bring with us something to the text).</B><BR/><BR/>So, if we all bring something with us to the text, and that is the danger of subjectivism, who is your Magisterium to make official pronouncements on anything lest in doing so they're willing to contradict their 2000 year old principle of having the 'authoritative' final say on a doctrine? That is, a bunch of doctrinal watch-dogs come to the Text (and any surrounding documents on whatever's in question) and hammer out a collective subjectivism concerning a doctrine, and voila! we have a definitive, authoritative, and thereby binding pronouncement on a theological issue? Nothing has changed in the scenario you present, Gregory, except that there are a bunch of ecclesiastical cronies calculating on a doctrine that a single, peevish Protestant can look into. If that's the case, the Catholic Church doesn't get to be more right because they have more people pouring over a doctrine than the arm-chair Protestant theologian sitting at home working through the same doctrine himself. More does not make 'righter'. It just makes more people bringing more selves to the table; more subjectivism.<BR/><BR/><B>Jude 3 seems to contradict you on that point. That is, there is a faith "once for all handed down". We do not fully comprehend the breadth and heighth and depth of it, and it is in that regard that we still grow in our understanding of the Truth as the Holy Spirit guides us into that Truth. This is what produces development in doctrine. But that doctrine and its development are not sporadic or subjective things, but are, as Jesus promised, "guided".</B><BR/><BR/>Not following you here, friend. So we've got this faith that's been handed down. Great. With you so far. Then you state that we don't fully understand it. Fine. But then you admit that we "grow in our understanding of the Truth as the Holy Spirit guides us into that Truth." Which you then go on to note is not 'subjective' but 'guided. So am I to take from what you've written that being guided by the Holy Spirit wipes out any possibility of human sinfulness messing with our understanding of what we're being guided into? And if that's the case, are you suggesting that the Magisterium -- being guided by the Holy Spirit, of course -- is perhaps holier than us bench-warmers who scratch our heads trying to make ends meet on this-that-or-the-other doctrine of faith? If we're not part of the old boys club (the Magisterium) we're less likely to know what our faith entails? Doesn't that seem like a bit of a practical gnosticism to you: they're the Magisterium so they know better; they know stuff we couldn't know 'cause God doesn't 'guide' us like that. He gives us partial truths and reserves the bigger portions of truth for the higher-up Mucky-Mucks.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to sound so crass, Gregory. I'm not upset at you, nor have you offended me. What offends me is the possible implications I see in Catholic reasoning based on what you've written. It's nothing personal. And if it was, I'd give you a call. ;)<BR/><BR/><B>How does Scripture (an inanimate book) examine itself? Ignoring that and accepting the obvious intended meaning that the student of Scripture reexamines it in light of the traditions, and showing their veracity, the question still remains, how does the Sola Scripturist avoid the subjectivism that leads to the brackets at the end of the hypothesis: whether right or wrong?</B><BR/><BR/>First, Scripture is living (Heb. 4:12), so God uses what He says to interpret what He says. We are just the agents through whom He speaks via the written word. Hence when we read Scripture and we need understanding, God can guide us in understanding by giving us more of His Word as the interpretation for the Scripture we need interpreted. If the issue were as simple as 'can paper speak for itself' (as your quip, "How does Scripture [and inanimate book] examine itself?" intimates) we'd be dealing with a quirky topic not fit for theology.<BR/> <BR/>More Scripture is not a casuistry manual, so it doesn't set out the how-to's of it's own self-interpretation. We can infer rightly, however, that because it is living and active that God is speaking through it directly to those that read it, and that it is uniquely applicable (at times) to individual people despite traditional interpretations to the contrary. Traditional interpretations are a good bead on a doctrine, but as you noted above: "We do not fully comprehend the breadth and heighth and depth of it, and it is in that regard that we still grow in our understanding of the Truth as the Holy Spirit guides us into that Truth. This is what produces development in doctrine." Even without a Magisterium, I might add.<BR/><BR/>Second, the Sola Scripturist, if he is honest, will admit that he doesn't have all the right answers. But the implication from that is that he doesn't have all the wrong ones <I>ipso facto</I>. He doesn't even know if he has all the right or wrong answers in any ultimate sense. So can he avoid subjectivism? No. Does that mean that all parsing of Scripture must then terminate on 'right' or 'wrong'? No. But it certainly doesn't mean that believing Sola Scriptura is a strong working principle is equivalent to being a lone-ranger Christian and re-building Christendom one doctrine at a time! Holding to Sola Scriptura is a practical measure to insure that come what may, the source and norm for all understanding of the Christian life can be relied on from one source: Scripture.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, having a Magisterium doesn't secure you against the question of 'right or wrong?' It just puts the question up front a step sooner. You, subjective Gregory, still have to decide whether you're going to accept what the Magisterium says whether it's right or wrong. And that's what makes you Catholic, and me not. You decide what's right based on what the Magisterium says is right; I decide what's right based on what I think Scripture tells me is right. And once you face God at the final judgment, Gregory, the Magisterium isn't going to play ersatz for you. You'll have to face God on your own, bud. And if the Magisterium was wrong about something, and God questions you about it, Gregory, you won't be able to get away with, "well, I believed it 'cause the Magisterium told me so." <BR/><BR/>The point is: you've put your lot in with a group of teachers, and you trust them to tell you what the truth is. That's fine overall. But let's not cast illusions that because you've done so you now have some greater force to appeal to than the Scripture that I, or any other Protestant reads. We're all relying on the same Holy Spirit to guide us, and we're all deciding in our human weakness to believe what we've been guided to, or not.<BR/><BR/>Pax Christi,<BR/>ChristopherKane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-9915882716308453682008-02-15T16:52:00.000-05:002008-02-15T16:52:00.000-05:00"'Infalliblity' doesn't mean we're always complete...<B>"'Infalliblity' doesn't mean we're always completely right--it simply means we're prevented from being utterly wrong."</B><BR/><BR/>I glossed over this the first time I read through your comments, but it was brought back to my attention today. So my question here is: does this translate into, 'Infallibility means we're not necessarily wrong'?<BR/><BR/>I'm pretty sure 'infallibility' as you've used it doesn't come across as such by way of classic definitions of the term.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Kane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-47505353791789086232008-02-14T22:01:00.000-05:002008-02-14T22:01:00.000-05:00I'm not even sure where to begin responding. You ...I'm not even sure where to begin responding. You wrote so much that I'm a little daunted at the prospect of copy/pasting this-that-and-the-other quote, point, or quip just to make a comment. That, and I don't have the time. Too many premiums on my time as it is. Sorry.<BR/><BR/>I'm just going to pull some things off the top of my head that stood out from your posts, Gregory, and comment on it.<BR/><BR/>I wrote: <B>Gregory, Hidden One, take up the issue of doctrinal infallibility. What would happen to your line of thinking if it could be reasonable shown that doctrinal infallibility is not reasonably pronounced on human understandings of Scripture and history?</B><BR/><BR/>To which you replied (in part): <I>No one has made the claim that Infallibility extends to understandings of history (or science, for that matter, despite your oft-repeated non sequitur about ancient Christians believing the earth was flat). Infallibility extends only to official declarations of doctrine pertaining to Faith and Morals. If we rephrase your question in light of what Doctrinal Infallibility does cover, I'll proceed to answer your questions.</I><BR/><BR/>Drawing attention to the oft-repeated non sequitur, as you put it, was not an attempt to draw a parallel between cosmology and Mariology. In fact, it was a parallel meant to illustrate the point that what we believe is not necessarily always what is. Or, to put it differently, I can believe with all earnestness and sincerity that my wife has always enjoyed Metallica, but eventually, through some means of communication, I'm going to find out that that's simply not the case. In the end, what I so genuinely believed was simply untrue. Our beliefs don't dictate reality. So as far as I can see, my use of the example of early Christians believing the earth was flat was not a non sequitur, but an example used to illustrate a fact: that our beliefs can be mistaken, no matter how well we cling to them, or attempt to justify them.<BR/><BR/>You also said: <I> Ultimately, I would lose Christianity, since Jesus would have failed to be able to keep His promise that the Gates of Hell would not overcome the Church--for if the Church can err, then it has erred.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'm just not sure how to understand the kind of conclusion that you've made here, but my immediate thought is that you've missed the connecting ingredients between a) the Church making a mistake, and c) Hell storming, and destroying the Church. What happened to "b"? Have you committed the fallacy of the excluded middle? From my vantage it seems so, but before I simply accuse you of that, I'd like to invite you to fill in the gap, if indeed there is one.<BR/><BR/>I think that's all for now. I'm feeling distracted tonight, so I'm going to go entertain my impulsivity.<BR/><BR/>God bless you,<BR/>ChristopherKane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-36018761126232314292008-02-13T17:02:00.000-05:002008-02-13T17:02:00.000-05:00Gregory: "I believe that that is the point that Hi...Gregory: "I believe that that is the point that Hidden One was trying to establish in his hypothesis--and he can correct me if I am wrong in that regard. Nevertheless, it is the position I will establish for myself."<BR/><BR/>You got me there. <BR/><BR/>"I challenged your challenge--and I believe that Hidden One was probably over-generalising a bit."<BR/><BR/>Guilty, and guilty to the "Sacred" thing, too.<BR/><BR/>"A Tradition which is itself only 500 years old, compared with a 2000 year old tradition for Catholicism. Sola Scriptura was never taught nor practiced before Martin Luther--which is another (main) reason why Catholics reject it as a working principle."<BR/><BR/>Actually, I seem to recall a quote or two from Augustine rejecting/countering a notion at least similar to Sola Scriptura, but to the best of my knowledge, this oft-called "proto-Protestant" seems to have won out in defence of the Magisterium. I'll glance around and see if I can find it.<BR/><BR/>"I believe H1's bracketing of "Sacred" was meant to indicate that his use of Tradition with a capital T referred specifically to "Sacred Tradition", whereas small-t tradition was more all-inclusive of any Christian belief within history, right or wrong. I'm not sure that was understood by you, and so I keep belabouring the point."<BR/><BR/>Bingo.<BR/><BR/>"Whew, that was a lot."<BR/><BR/>Yup.Hidden Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042188431683942338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-51705918783450305332008-02-13T15:00:00.000-05:002008-02-13T15:00:00.000-05:00So it turns out that the reason I said I had to go...So it turns out that the reason I said I had to go just then, earlier, was cancelled, so I'm back and am going to try to finish off my response to the comment from Suneal which I had begun...<BR/><BR/><I>Therefore, two factors exist. One, we all start from somewhere in our faith, and as Protestants that is within a certain Tradition and its vision of “sola scriptura.”</I><BR/><BR/>A Tradition which is itself only 500 years old, compared with a 2000 year old tradition for Catholicism. Sola Scriptura was never taught nor practiced before Martin Luther--which is another (main) reason why Catholics reject it as a working principle.<BR/><BR/><I>Two, we all add to that original vision given to us, through Tradition and further study of Scripture, etc. Hence the hermeneutical circle grows.</I><BR/><BR/>The difference, again, as I've stated repeatedly here, is that without an infallible authority to guide the acceptance and rejection of certain traditions and the proper interpretation of Scripture, the hermeneutical circle, whether static or growing, is subjective at its core and can be no sure determinate of truth in and of itself.<BR/><BR/><I>Are there periods in all this of challenge, considering Tradition that opposes our own personal/organizational bias? Absolutely. Growth implies growth pains and that is not usually pleasant.</I><BR/><BR/>That may very well be--but it is no sign that the growth is a good or healthy one. Cancerous growths include their own "growing pains"--but those pains lead to death.<BR/><BR/><I>God can use life circumstances as well to break us into new, better ways of living in faith and love before Him. If we don't experience that then we are not being treated as sons and daughters who are being disciplined for their spiritual benefit and to be conformed to the image of His Son.</I><BR/><BR/>Very true, and I agree wholeheartedly. I fail to see the relevance, however.<BR/><BR/><I>So with regards to the hermenuetical circle, this process does not quite fit into a dictum, “Protestants accept only the T/tradition that agrees with their personal/organizational interpretation of Scripture (right or wrong).” In other words there is no fluidity to this, which therefore makes your hypothesis somewhat non-descriptive of much of Protestantism,...</I><BR/><BR/>I do not know that H1's conclusion is necessarily devoid of fluidity, or, on the other hand, how your more "fluid" correction necessarily leads to a different conclusion than an ultimately subjective acceptance or rejection of various traditions based on one's personal understanding of his faith. That faith may very well change and grow without negating the subjective quality inherent in it.<BR/><BR/><I>...while the absoluteness of the converse you state about Catholicism, that it “adheres to all of (sacred) Tradition,” is another rigid statement which in the end transcends all reality and historical fact, thus rendering your statement about Catholics accepting all Tradition as pure fiction.</I><BR/><BR/>I believe I have adequately corrected that flaw in H1's statement and your understanding of it. It is not that Catholicism embraces <I>all</I> tradition, but all Apostolic (or Sacred) Tradition. I believe H1's bracketing of "Sacred" was meant to indicate that his use of Tradition with a capital T referred specifically to "Sacred Tradition", whereas small-t tradition was more all-inclusive of any Christian belief within history, right or wrong. I'm not sure that was understood by you, and so I keep belabouring the point. <BR/><BR/><I>So there is truth and keen observation to your hypothesis, in my opinion. But in the end, I believe all of Tradition is still there for me to teach me something, not just to support what I already believe.</I><BR/><BR/>The "keen observation" in H1's comments was specifically about the subjectivity in Sola Scriptura's praxis, no matter how you splice it. Thus far, you have not shown anything within its system that nullifies the subjectivity and objectifies the truth, safeguarding the Christian against doctrinal relativism.<BR/><BR/><I>You could say the same about the Bible. Do you like all the wicked kings of the Old Testament? If you do, I'll pray for you, but if not, I am right there with you! Either way, they are in the Bible to learn from them, most particularly, what not to do. So Tradition good and bad can inform and draw me closer to Christ.</I><BR/><BR/>Your analogy falls apart in this: The Bible is quite explicitly clear about which kings were bad, so that we would know not to imitate, but to learn from the mistakes of, those kings. There is no similar explicit, objective voice--in the Sola Scriptura system--telling us which traditions are corrupt, and how we should learn from them to grow closer to Christ. It seems that it is very often the case that a Christian might reject a particularly important and good Tradition as corrupt, and "learn to grow closer to Christ" from its alleged error. But since the Christian in this circumstance is in error to begin with, and is building on that error by avoiding the truth which he believes <I>is</I> error, he cannot thereby grow closer to Christ, can he?<BR/><BR/><I>I hope you believe also, Hidden One, that Protestants also can and do embrace the personally uncomfortable Traditions for the greater collective good of a community of faith.</I><BR/><BR/>I am not sure what you mean here. If you mean that a believer tacitly accepts an error that is believed by the larger community, for the "good" of the community, then no, I for one vehemently disagree.<BR/><BR/><I>I may like to drink alcohol, but if it causes my brother to stumble, the higher law of love is my rule.</I><BR/><BR/>That higher law of love may involve abstinence for you, but it also engages you to strengthen the weaker brother, as well. We are not to leave him in his weakened state.<BR/><BR/><I>I may believe in an amillennialist interpretation of prophecy in a premillennialist church, but I don’t have to argue my position in that church.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm a touch rusty on my prophetic particulars, but what if a particular interpretation includes with it certain heretical beliefs? Should we not root out that heresy?<BR/><BR/><I>These are small examples, but I believe pertinent ones.</I><BR/><BR/>I have an example, as well. One I was hoping might be more direct, which is one ulterior motive I had in asking you for a statement of what you believe, which, while you provided that, you skipped over the particular doctrinal point I thought a former Pentecostal might be sure to include. As such, my example will have to be slightly more hypothetical than I initially intended, since I'm not entirely certain on which side you fall--though I might wager a guess. Nevertheless, we know what assuming does...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, to wit:<BR/>Within Protestantism there are two camps regarding the "charismatic gifts" of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (and granted, these two camps involve a spectrum by way of <I>emphasis</I>, but nevertheless they are two competing, contradictory, and irreconcilable positions. I will deal with them at what I perceive to be their logical conclusions). On the one hand, we have those who embrace the charismatic move of the Holy Spirit, such as Pentecostals and others--people who believe that such miraculous manifestations are of God and part of the life of the Church today. On the other hand, there are the Cessationists, who believe that such miraculous manifestations terminated either with the death of the Apostles or the completion of the writing of, or canonisation of, Scripture--depending on who you ask. To them, such modern-day manifestations are either self-delusions, fakery, or demonically inspired.<BR/><BR/>This being the case, how do we respond? If a person believes that, say, tongues are from the Holy Spirit, then he would worry that a cessationist could be endangering his salvation by "quenching" and "grieving" the Spirit. On the other hand, the cessationist views the charismatic as either a liar, a lunatic, or a possessed man.<BR/><BR/>So while your profferred examples are somewhat benign, there are other, weightier issues separating Protestants, which, considered to their logical conclusions, would cut each other out of "the church catholic". How, then, are such discrepancies reconciled by Sola Scriptura if both sides profess to abide by that rule of faith?<BR/><BR/><I>This comes around to where I think Protestants and Catholics should be, seeing each other in a common Tradition, or a catholicity that allows both to acknowledge not only to each other our strong points in the faith, but also our weak points.</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, because our interpretation of that Tradition differs so widely, it cannot really be considered a common one. Yes, there are many points of intersect, and as such, we can rightly consider each other brothers. But somewhere back in the day, the two groups decided to adhere to differing traditions that were irreconcilable.<BR/><BR/><I>But if one party is “infallible,” I guess we are not going to be having too many “weak sessions” together. Therefore, we both miss out on each of our Traditions both challenging and informing the other, at least in a way that is most beneficial to true openness between two parties.</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree that this is necessarily the case. There are many weak points in Catholicism, and many ways in which we have learned and grown from Protestantism--such as, for example, a renewed emphasis on Bible Study by the lay person, for example. There have been times as well when Protestant perspectives on certain doctrines--when they haven't outright contradicted the dogmatic Catholic position--have served to round out that dogmatic Catholic understanding.<BR/><BR/>"Infalliblity" doesn't mean we're always completely right--it simply means we're prevented from being utterly wrong. There are still plenty of "we don't know for sure"s and such to be worked through, as the Spirit continues to guide the Church into the fullness of Truth--and it won't be the first time that the Spirit uses the Protestand communions to aid us--despite our claim to infallibility. It is that infallible charism that will help weed out what is good from what is bad within Protestantism.<BR/><BR/>It is the other direction that I wonder about, honestly. You claim that I won't admit to a variant interpretation on Mary's perpetual virginity, for example, but neither have you shown that you might be willing to reexamine your own views about our Blessed Mother, either. In that regard, at least, it's the pot calling the kettle black.<BR/><BR/><I>Finally, as Chris has mentioned, Protestants draw from the same sources of Tradition as do Catholics. As well, Protestants can not trace their lineage except through either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.</I><BR/><BR/>Do Protestants trace lineage through Eastern Orthodoxy? What groups, and on what basis? It seems somewhat historically untenable.<BR/><BR/><I>For this reason Catholics are valuable, in that they are closer to the Traditions of the church generally speaking. But the fact Catholicism may have strayed, is the strength of Protestantism to go back to the closest reliable documented source, Scripture alone.</I><BR/><BR/>The problem is, one can make the claim that Catholicism strayed, but it has never been successfully demonstrated <I>when</I> that straying occurred. And, if the Church did stray at some point in history, why did it take so long for the Reformation to occur? If the Church is to be protected against the Gates of Hell prevailing, how is it that those gates did prevail for the duration of time between Catholicism apostatising and Luther reforming? Moreover, on what point can you demonstrate Catholicism erring that doesn't, once again, boil down to a subjective interpretation of Scripture? I personally am of the belief that no Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture in any way, even if some of those doctrines aren't explicitly located within Scripture. On what grounds then, should I take the subjective opinion of a Protestant who claims that the Church has strayed from Scripture simply because his interpretation of that Scripture happens to differ from mine? If we both adopt Sola Scriptura, then we both have the right (and if Luther's "ploughboy" is to be believed, the ability) to interpret that Scripture. Who then arbitrates between our conflicting interpretations? If, on the other hand, I believe that I have a Church with an infallible teaching authority to decide such matters, the deck is, admittedly, stacked in its favour. Moreover, the Scripture itself is only as reliable as a source as the person who is interpreting it is reliable as an interpreter. We've referred to the Scripture as "infallible", but really, it isn't. It contains no error regarding faith and morals--it is "inerrant". But a text cannot be infallible. Infallibility is a property that belongs to a person. Scripture cannot infallibly interpret itself.<BR/><BR/><I>If some believe the church can not stray, then how do they account for "the falling away" described in I Thes 2:3. Obviously for Paul, the same person who said the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, also said there would be a "falling away" and in the "temple of God" "a man of lawlessness."</I><BR/><BR/>Individual Catholics can fall away--and will, at the last day, fall away <I>en masse</I>, led away by the Man of Lawlessness who will persecute the Church, driving the faithful underground, and will then presume to place himself at the head of a counterfeit church. The Catholic Church has always held that one can abandon the faith. How does that contradict the truth that the Church itself will never fail--that is, there will always be a remnant, and the Magisterium will never formally embrace error and heresy?<BR/><BR/><I>Because of all the above mentioned factors, we need to heed Scripture primarily and study Tradition for further enlightenment to that revelation of Scripture.</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree. Rather, because of all those above mentioned factors, we need the security that Christ promised us, in a Church upon which we can rely to teach the Truth no matter what the opposition, "all the more as that Day approaches."<BR/><BR/><I>As to who decides definitively on which Traditions are correct, well I believe Chris' question 7-8 posts back should be raised again. <BR/><BR/>Here it is from Chris' words:<BR/><BR/>"So here's my concern: what validates the Catholic Church's claim on sacred tradition if the Protestant church draws on the same traditions to different conclusions? What makes the Catholic Church right over above Protestants who have come to different conclusions from the same sources (e.g., Lutherans)?"</I><BR/><BR/>My answer to Chris' question still stands:<BR/>As I mention above, it is the third leg--the Magisterium--which effectively changes the structure of the rule of faith and safeguards and ever re-examines Scripture and Tradition in light of modern, contemporary concerns, in order to keep the faith living and active and understood. And yes, the Church's self-understanding of infallibility in that regard does rather tip the balance....[T]he very existence of a magisterial body seems to be absent in Protestantism as a whole. What person or body of people in historical Protestantism ascertains the proper interpretation of Scripture, or the adherence to which traditions as binding or useful? What man or group of men enforces these decisions as binding upon the faithful. Perhaps I am mistaken, and please correct me, but the very Protestant ecclesiological self-understanding seems to preclude the very possibility of the existence of such an office.<BR/><BR/>And whether you agree that there is or should be such an office, or whether or not such an office is or could be preserved infallible in its decrees, nevertheless, it is the office that makes all the difference in the world between historical Sola Scriptura and the Catholic rule of faith.<BR/><BR/>Whew, that was a lot.<BR/>God bless<BR/>GregoryGregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-7045533472731630852008-02-13T12:39:00.000-05:002008-02-13T12:39:00.000-05:00Whew...Well, I'm getting there, anyway...Hidden On...Whew...Well, I'm getting there, anyway...<BR/><BR/>Hidden One wrote:<BR/><I>As I don't have time to respond to Suneal and/or Chris in any great length at this point, I'm simpyl going to pose antoher question.<BR/><BR/>Considering the fact that neither Suneal nor Chris ever said that my hypothesizing is wrong, is it actually right, regardless (at this point) of whether or not Catholics do the same/something similar?</I><BR/><BR/>Suneal replied with:<BR/><I>Hi Hidden One,<BR/><BR/>Your so hidden I don't know your real name. Anyway, Chris said in one sentence what I will say in many paragraphs.</I><BR/><BR/>H1's insistence on remaining hidden is rather frustrating, especially since his first name is so generic, that unless one were to include his last name (which is a bitch to spell, anyway), no one would have any idea who he is. His moniker is redundant, in my eyes. But ah well.<BR/><BR/><I>Here is your qurestion:<BR/><BR/>"Considering the fact that neither Suneal nor Chris ever said that my hypothesizing is wrong, is it actually right, regardless (at this point) of whether or not Catholics do the same/something similar?"<BR/><BR/>Chris said:<BR/><BR/>"But by doing so, however, it should be noted then that there is no difference between what the Catholics have done all through history, and what the Protestants have done from the moment of the Reformation on: developed." <BR/><BR/>I think here Chris acknowledges your hypothesis is workable as a model for church history and as the fact that we are "human."</I><BR/><BR/>Why does the fact that we are human preclude the ability of the Holy Spirit to guide His Church infallibly so as to prevent it from teaching error? After all, the writers of Sacred Scripture were so preserved from transmitting error in their writings. On what basis does the Protestant limit that gift to the writers of Scripture, and not permit it to be applied to those with the responsibility of interpreting and propagating it? I don't see in the Bible itself why this should be so, any more than I see anything explicit in the Bible that says the Bible itself is infallible. I do see the Bible being called God's Word, and since God cannot lie nor err, His Word must logically have the same quality of veracity. However, I also see, as I've mentioned, Apostolic Tradition being referred to as God's Word, whether it is written or oral. On what grounds, then, do we say that it is subject to fallibility whereas the Scriptures are not? Further, I see Jesus promising that His Church will never be overcome by Satan (the Father of Lies) and that it is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. On what logical grounds do we deny it infallibility? How can a fallible Church support the Truth? And more, if that Church is indeed Christ's Body, then should it not have the same quality of Truth as its Head claims for Himself?<BR/><BR/><I>This humanness is not really an issue for Protestants, for that is why they have "sola scriptura" as their final rule of faith, for the buck stops there rather than at our humanness.</I><BR/><BR/>But herein lies the problem which I believe H1's question and earlier hypothesis strikes at, which, it seems to me, you have overlooked. This problem manifests itself in two errors in your reasoning:<BR/><BR/>The first is that, for the Catholic, the Church is divinely prevented from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals. Thus, She doesn't rely on "humanness" any more than the Sola Scripturist is allegedly able to avoid that pitfall.<BR/><BR/>The second is this: Scripture requires interpretation. This is true whether we talk about the Bible or any other text. Goodness knows that even our discussion here has been subject to misinterpretations! How are we expected to be able to properly interpret a text that is between 2000 and 3500 years old, written in various foreign languages representative of several foreign cultures which we don't really understand?<BR/><BR/>Now, here's what I believe you would say in answer to that question--correct me if I am wrong: On the one hand, the testimony of tradition would guide in understanding, as would scholarly works by experts in the languages and cultures, thus bridging the gap somewhat. Further, the Holy Spirit is able to guide the faithful student into a proper understanding.<BR/><BR/>The connundrum occurs precisely here: You have already stated that traditions must be subject to one's interpretation of Scripture--that is, Scripture determines the validity of tradition, not tradition determining the validity of the interpretation of Scripture. Thus, how can one rely on tradition to determine the proper interpretation of Scripture, when tradition is itself dependent on that proper interpretation in the first place?<BR/><BR/>As to the scholars, they themselves have to rely on various traditions in order to reach their own conclusions. Moreover, various scholars disagree with each other as to certain points. How does one determine which scholar is more reliable and accurate than the other?<BR/><BR/>Since, then, it seems that the accuracy of the tradition and the scholar is determined by one's understanding of the Scripture--an understanding ostensibly arrived at by the tradition with the aid of the scholar, the "historical" Sola Scripturist finds himself in a position that ends up being not to different than the so-called "solo scripturist" who claims (spuriously) to only rely on "the Holy Spirit and me", whom the historical Sola Scripturist decries so fiercely as not being true to the spirit of Sola Scriptura as initially laid out. It seems to me, however, that the Solo Scripturist is simply the logical conclusion to Sola Scriptura.<BR/><BR/>I believe that that is the point that Hidden One was trying to establish in his hypothesis--and he can correct me if I am wrong in that regard. Nevertheless, it is the position I will establish for myself.<BR/><BR/>Now, the "Holy Spirit and me" position, to my mind, is a fair one. After all, it is similar to the Catholic infallibility position--that is, the Holy Spirit preserves the Pope and the college of bishops from promulgating formal heresy as binding doctrine. The difference is that, while the Catholic Church sees this protection as beloning to one person, and by extention, to a group of people acting as a college in union with that person, the Protestant notion sees the Holy Spirit guiding each individual's interpretation of Scripture in a unique and personal way. How much that individual chooses to rely on the traditions and expertise of others is a subjective choice that he makes--as is the decision of which traditions and which scholars the individual chooses to employ, and which to dismiss.<BR/><BR/>The problem resulting from this position, and I believe inherent in it, is the one that I have mounted repeatedly against Sola Scriptura (in whatever form one chooses to employ it)--and that is its breakdown into a disunified Christianity. That is, two sola scripturists, reading the same Scriptures, guided by the same Holy Spirit (ostensibly), and relying on the same traditions, or alternately selecting different traditions according to their notion of what is a valid tradition and what isn't, arrive at two different and often outright contradictory positions.<BR/><BR/>Now, if there is "one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all", how can there then be two different interpretations, if that One God and His one Scripture are where "the buck stops...rather than at our humanness", as you put it, Suneal?<BR/><BR/>Now, you can blame it, as many do, on sin in the life of the interpreter blocking the voice of the Spirit--but what of the times when that is not the case? And if we are all sinful people, how can we ever be sure that we are free of sin enough to ensure proper communication with the Spirit?<BR/><BR/>Or, if because of our humanness, we cannot rely on an interpretation to be infallibly guided by the Spirit, then how can we possibly avoid the doctrinal relativism which I said Sola Scriptura logically breaks down into?<BR/><BR/><I>Our humanness happens to be the place truth is worked out, as the Truth, Jesus, lives among His people of truth.</I><BR/><BR/>But until that truth is worked out in us, we cannot be sure that we have it. If we cannot be sure that we know the truth at any given point, how can we believe it in faith, and proclaim it to a lost and dying world? If the truth is not something that is revealed to us--something infallibly preserved in us--how can we actually be considered a "people of truth"?<BR/><BR/><I>Now for my longer winded answer. I take much longer than Chris to say things, so that Chris can be more appreciated.:)<BR/><BR/>Hidden One, here I believe is the hypothesis you were referring to:<BR/><BR/>"It seems to me that the Protestant position on Tradition as you define it in essence is that Protestants will accept any and all Tradition that they feel is in line with Scripture, which leads to Protestants accepting only the T/tradition that agrees with their personal/organizational interpretation of Scripture (right or wrong), while Catholics adhere to all of (Sacred) Tradition."<BR/><BR/>Your hypothesis did include a contrast to Catholics, so you can not say it is right despite what Catholics do similarly or not. Do you agree with that, Hidden One?</I><BR/><BR/>I believe Hidden One's "similarly behaving Catholics" referred to the Cafeteria Catholics, who aren't being obedient to the Church in the first place. Moreover, it was you who claimed that all of Catholicism does what Hidden One claimed Protestants do, not he himself. His desire to deal with the Protestant practice despite Catholicism was a desire to stay focused on his hypothesis rather than follow the rabbit trail which you brought up in your initial rebuttal. I would aver that I sufficiently dealt with your rebuttal above, and continue to deny that what the Catholic Church does is the same as what Hidden One describes Protestantism as doing. As such, the "Catholics do it too" rebuttal is rendered rather null.<BR/><BR/><I>Part of your hypothesis was that Catholics do not do what Protestants do, which is to accept only Tradition that suits their preference, and I challenged that notion entirely.</I><BR/><BR/>I challenged your challenge--and I believe that Hidden One was probably over-generalising a bit. The main part of the problem was his encasing "Sacred" in parentheses, making it seem like an extraneous term rather than central to the whole premise. The Church does not accept all tradition, but only Sacred Tradition--that is, Tradition believed to be handed down from the Apostles as the Word of God, and the logical development of that Tradition as put forth by the Magisterium--as binding on all believers. This contrasts with Protestantism in two ways. First, Protestants do not choose to accept even many of the certain apostolic traditions, such as the Sacramental life of the Church, in many cases--and even those denominations which do, do so only in a limited fashion. Secondly, Protestantism has no such juridical body to separate what is Apostolic Tradition from the local cultural traditions and legends that crop up from time to time as a result of the "humanness" of Christians.<BR/><BR/><I>However, for the sake of fairness, I will discuss only Protestants in your hypothesis for a moment. <BR/><BR/>You assume (a) leads to (b). With (a) being “Protestants will accept any and all Tradition that they feel is in line with Scripture” and (b) being “Protestants accepting only the T/tradition that agrees with their personal/organizational interpretation of Scripture (right or wrong).” Now to a certain extent you are right. However, there is a hermeneutical circle in play, in which Scripture informs about Tradition and Tradition informs about Scripture. So it is not just as you say, but there needs to be a (c) clause added to more properly describe the hermeneutical circle. The (c) clause would be this; “Tradition informs us about Scripture, perhaps opening up Scripture to a truer, deeper understanding of it, which Scripture upon closer examination itself verifies, hence also verifying the usefulness of Tradition.” Now I think clause (c) stands somewhere between (a) and (b).</I><BR/><BR/>I believe I dealt with this adequately above when I described the Sola Scripturist's logical connundrum earlier in this comment. I do not see that adding (c) does anything to break the hermeneutical circle out of its circular reasoning. You are still left with a chicken-and-egg paradox, and a subjective evaluation of which traditions interpret Scripture, and whether Scripture bears out that tradition's interpretation. If this subjectivity did not exist, then there would not be the myriad denominations in existence today. Unless something has the authority to definitively and actively say "This is the truth; walk ye in it," the subjectivism will continue to circle around itself, and the only conclusions that will be drawn are what the interpreter has already brought with him to the text (since we all bring with us something to the text).<BR/><BR/><I>So here is what I am saying in layman terms, yes, your hypothesis is generally right, but there is still room for growth, it is not necessarily a static experience for a Protestant individually or collectively. Therefore, you need to amend this word “only,” for that is not true necessarily. This in the end amounts to this in my mind, the quest for truth on matters of faith, period. No Christian knows everything or has all knowlege, neither does any one Tradition in my opinion.</I><BR/><BR/>Jude 3 seems to contradict you on that point. That is, there is a faith "once for all handed down". We do not fully comprehend the breadth and heighth and depth of it, and it is in that regard that we still grow in our understanding of the Truth as the Holy Spirit guides us into that Truth. This is what produces development in doctrine. But that doctrine and its development are not sporadic or subjective things, but are, as Jesus promised, "guided".<BR/><BR/><I>So here then is my amended version of your hypothesis:<BR/><BR/>"Protestants will accept any and all Tradition that they feel is in line with Scripture, while Tradition informs us about Scripture, perhaps opening up Scripture to a truer, deeper understanding of it, which Scripture upon closer examination itself verifies, hence also verifying the usefulness of Tradition, which leads to Protestants accepting the T/tradition that agrees with their personal/organizational interpretation of Scripture (right or wrong)."</I><BR/><BR/>How does Scripture (an inanimate book) examine itself? Ignoring that and accepting the obvious intended meaning that the student of Scripture reexamines it in light of the traditions, and showing their veracity, the question still remains, how does the Sola Scripturist avoid the subjectivism that leads to the brackets at the end of the hypothesis: whether right or wrong?<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, that's all I have time for today. I'll finish up the rest of Suneal's reply to Hidden One shortly.<BR/><BR/>I did want to ammend an earlier comment that I made in response to Suneal's claim that the Orthodox Church doesn't believe in Mary's Immaculate Conception. What I said earlier stands, but I lately learned further information of interest, while listening to an interview with a Ukranian Greek Catholic priest who converted from Eastern Orthodoxy. You can listen to the interview by going <A HREF="http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php" REL="nofollow">here</A> and clicking on the Feb 12 show (it's not uploaded yet, but it should be within the next day or so).<BR/><BR/>Fr. Yuriy Kolasa, when asked by a caller about the differences in theology between Catholics and Orthodox, stated that the only real major difference is the Orthodox denial of the papacy. The "Filioque" controversy that led to the Great Schism was overcome once cooler heads were able to prevail (and the Churches would have reunited at the Council of Florence, I believe, had the Turks not chosen that moment to invade Constantinople, leading to some western Catholic atrocities towards the Byzantine Christains which set relations back centuries). The other doctrine that Fr. Kolasa mentioned, since it's brought up a lot, is the Immaculate Conception. He stated, with regard to this, that the belief is noticeably implicit in the Eastern Church's teachings and writings, and that the reason why She hasn't officially pronounced on it is political rather than theological: namely, that the timing of the Catholic Church's declaration was a detrimental one in light of Catholic-Orthodox relations. In other words, because of heated disagreement then occurring between East and West, the East reacted to the Pope's pronouncement by rejecting the prospect of pronouncing similarly pretty much out of spite.<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, therefore, Orthodoxy does implicitly believe in the Immaculate Conception, and on the other, her ongoing denial of the doctrine in explicit terms is a political position and not a theological one. As such, their stance cannot be accurately presented as a dissenting tradition in the other "ancient" Church (as well, it casts a shadow on Suneal's assertion that the Eastern Orthodox Church has been more "consistent" in her doctrines).<BR/><BR/>Seriously out of time now.<BR/>God bless<BR/>GregoryGregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-68654874185508602892008-02-12T15:01:00.000-05:002008-02-12T15:01:00.000-05:00I understand your point, H1, but, for the purposes...I understand your point, H1, but, for the purposes of my description, I was referring to Protestantism as a distinct and separate entity unto itself, not as a splinter from Catholicism.<BR/><BR/>Even though historically, Protestantism was a reaction to and "protest" of the Magisterium, today, the majority of Protestants are not themselves guilty of this rebellion, which is why the Catholic Church can consider them brethren. As such, their methodology, and the current motives underpinning it, are different from the original reformers (again, for the most part). It is for that reason that I dealt with the Protestant system, and the "system" of Cafeteria Catholics, in the way that I did.<BR/><BR/>Well, since I'm here, I might as well try to reply to Chris before posting a new article. If I take too long replying to Chris and don't get a new post up, blame him...or Paul...certainly not me! ;)<BR/><BR/>Christopher wrote:<BR/><I>First, thank you, Hidden One, for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate you taking the time to consider the issue seriously, and write out a reply.</I><BR/><BR/>It's nice when you two can actually get along in a discussion ;) Does the heart good.<BR/><BR/><I>Second, I'm on board with Suneal as concerns this issue, so far. No big surprise, I'm sure! <BR/><BR/>In any case, Suneal has layed out some pretty hard-hitting, historical proofs for Catholic selectivism regarding Tradition.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not entirely convinced that he has, as per my response to him above. It seems, more accurately, that he has misunderstood the notion of Tradition vs. tradition, lumping them all together as of equal weight, and then complained about inconsistencies, while at the same time excluding the obvious place of the Magisterium, headed by and embodied in the Pope, to make the very decisions that Suneal decried. That being the case, Suneal's insights are very hard-hitting to the seemingly inadvertant paper tiger that was set up, but, at least to my mind, not so much against actual Catholic self-understanding of its methodology.<BR/><BR/><I>To my way of thinking, that does not dismantle, or disgrace the Roman communion anymore than admitting the common sentiment, "I'm only human. I'm not perfect." Hence the Roman Catholic Church can continue on with its claims to Tradition, and in a Newman-esque fashion decidedly deal with variances by citing a 'development of doctrine.'</I><BR/><BR/>When you say "Newman-esque fashion", you obviously are alluding to John Henry Cardinal Newman's essay on the Development of Doctrine (a concept that did not originate with Newman, btw). To put it the way you did, it seems that you are discrediting Newman's contribution to Catholic apologetics as laid out in that essay, without offering any reason why it should be so discredited. Next, you will equate Protestant "developments" with those argued for by Newman in the Catholic Church, even though that self-same essay seems to anticipate you when it details what is and what is not a valid development.<BR/><BR/>I suppose that we would have to discuss the essay and its major points individually to do that topic justice, as it seems rather outside the purview of our current discussion. Perhaps I'll do a series on it after I'm done with Mary.<BR/><BR/><I>But by doing so, however, it should be noted then that there is no difference between what the Catholics have done all through history, and what the Protestants have done from the moment of the Reformation on: developed.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, the key is what "developments" are valid, and what aren't. Not all changes are valid developments, as Newman himself elucidates. And more, the multi-faceted ways in which doctrine has "developed" in Protestantism--developing in a different direction for each denomination, again indicates to me the need for a guiding force such as the Magisterium. <BR/><BR/><I>Protestants came out from the Catholic Church because of a development in doctrine that was found to be unacceptable to other Church curates at the time. Those developments (the Reformation ones, that is) are not anathema because they don't bear the papal insignia but because they threaten a collective understanding that itself has become tradition, and of which the pope is the elected representative.</I> <BR/><BR/>Your vagueness about what doctrines you're referring to as well as your particular sentence structure cause me to have very little idea of what your meaning is, and so I'm at a loss to give an adequate response. It seems to me that the reason the Church rejected any particular Reformation doctrine would depend mainly on the doctrine itself, and not the emotional reaction to it. But again, since you neglected to give a specific example (though I suppose I could infer one), I can't fairly respond.<BR/><BR/><I>It could be argued that these developmental differences are on level with a large-scale cognitive dissonance (http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm).<BR/><BR/>That is, since Protestants are the result of doctrines that challenged the status quo of traditional Roman Catholicism, the Roman Catholic Church is forced to consider the veracity of its traditions and can't reconcile the apparent contradictions between the competing cognitions of Protestants and Catholics.</I><BR/><BR/>Read the link, still not entirely sure of your meaning. Are you saying that Catholicism rejected Protestant claims simply because the Church was too invested in its own interpretations, and that's why Protestantism exists today? This may in part be true, but then, that's also the same as implying that Protestants are <I>ipso facto</I> right in their new interpretations and Catholics mistaken in their own long-held understandings--or, at least, that neither position can be proved or held with any certainty.<BR/><BR/>The first conclusion seems to me to be begging the question, while the second boils down precisely to the doctrinal relativism of which I believe to be the end result of Sola Scriptura. If I've really missed something (which is entirely possible, since I'm really having difficulty understanding you), please clear it up for me. <BR/><BR/><I>The first tactic in situations like this, and historically with the Roman Catholic Church, is to simply deny the difference.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, with a lack of particular example, this has confused me. Are you saying that the Catholic Church began by ignoring the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism? That doesn't seem to square with what I know of the historical record. I could be wrong, of course, but again, I need something concrete.<BR/><BR/><I>That is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church did with Protestants, and it led to peevish and rabid distortions, and dis-trust between both factions. Hence one reason why both groups of Christians nowadays can lay claim to the same sources in history and come up with different conclusions, but neither group can afford the other the room to say, "maybe I was wrong, afterall." That would require a religious, and psychological overhauling that neither communion is prepared to accept. The result is that we've moved through history since the Reformation, held to our dissimilar claims, and none of us are any better for it.</I><BR/><BR/>This was the result of what again? Denying that there were differences between our communions in the first place? And you've laid this denial squarely on the Catholic side? I'd really be better served if we examined your claims with specific details against the historical record.<BR/><BR/><I>So let's bring things back to</I> Mariology <I>now. What if Catholics and Protestants are both wrong on their interpretations of Mary?</I><BR/><BR/>Do you mean with regard to individual doctrines about Mary, or that Catholics are right on some points and Protestants right on others? If the former, then there is an Option C which is not readily clear on each. If we're both wrong about her Immaculate Conception, what is the third option between either she was or either she wasn't? Same with her Perpetual Virginity or her Assumption. (As far as her being the Mother of God, as far as I know we're all agreed on that. It's only historically uninformed Protestants that have ever challenged me on that doctrine.)<BR/><BR/>If the latter, I suppose it would depend on the individual case again, though it seems to me that I, personally, would have a fair amount to lose. Namely, the understanding of the Church as protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. In which case, I would have to quit the Catholic Church--something that will require hard-hitting proof to accomplish, since such hard-hitting proof was necessary for me to enter the Church in the first place.<BR/><BR/>It is this fact that I think has frustrated Suneal so incredibly about me. It is not that I am not open to the truth, nor that I can't admit that I could be wrong. It is that such an admission goes beyond a simple academic abstraction. In fact, theology as an abstraction devoid of real implications is an utterly strange and alien concept to me. If X is true, then I must believe X and adjust my life accordingly. I was convinced that X = Catholicism, and that life-adjustment cost me a lot (I suppose I am like the really invested cult member in the Cognitive Dissonance essay example in that regard). If X=/=Catholicism, it will affect my church affiliation, my theology, my marriage, my career path, and many other things that I can't even take stock of now. I did it once after much study, prayer, and argument. If I am to repent of all of that, it will need to be the result of even more study, even more fervent prayer, and even better counter-argumentation.<BR/><BR/>It is not that your comments haven't mattered, Suneal. They have challenged me greatly. But they in themselves have not been enough to convince me. I doubt that this Open Forum will suffice--just as one internet discussion 5 years ago didn't suffice to make me a Catholic, either. But I have taken your words to heart, to prayer, and to study. I haven't simply ignored them, and my replying to this open forum should be evidence of that.<BR/><BR/><I>Suneal, what happens to your line of thinking if it could be reasonably shown that Mary was, in fact, never sexually active? What do you lose? What do you gain? How is your faith in Christ affected?</I><BR/><BR/>Suneal, I notice you never actually bothered to answer Chris' question...Unless I missed it. Could you point it out to me if I did?<BR/><BR/><I>Gregory, Hidden One, take up the issue of</I> doctrinal infallibility. <I>What would happen to your line of thinking if it could be reasonable shown that doctrinal infallibility is not reasonably pronounced on human understandings of Scripture and history?</I><BR/><BR/>No one has made the claim that Infallibility extends to understandings of history (or science, for that matter, despite your oft-repeated <I>non sequitur</I> about ancient Christians believing the earth was flat). Infallibility extends only to official declarations of doctrine pertaining to Faith and Morals. If we rephrase your question in light of what Doctrinal Infallibility <I>does</I> cover, I'll proceed to answer your questions.<BR/><BR/><I>What would you lose?</I> In short, the Catholic Church. It would be shown to be a fraud. Moreover, though, I would lose any possibility of knowing Truth. I would be tossed back on to my own limited and subjective understanding of Scripture, hoping that I was being guided by the Holy Spirit. I would need to reinvent the wheel all over again. Ultimately, I would lose Christianity, since Jesus would have failed to be able to keep His promise that the Gates of Hell would not overcome the Church--for if the Church can err, then it has erred. If it hasn't erred, then the Catholic Church is still true except in that one error of believing itself infallible. Since Protestantism comes rather late onto the scene, there is then 1500-odd years without a true Christianity, in which time the Gates of Hell <I>did</I> prevail--and more, there is no sure guarantee that any particular version of Protestantism is actually a restored Church. That leaves Orthodoxy, which, contrary to Suneal's assertion, has formally embraced heresy several times, and then turned back. Thus they have erred, and there is no sure way to tell whether their current state is true or not.<BR/><BR/>If there is no Church, then there can be no faith in the infallibility of the Scripture, except for circular reasoning of "because the Scripture says so", but the Scripture also says various other things which would be overthrown in the above-outlined scenario. Moreover, since an erring Church produced the Canon of Scripture, I could not even trust that the Canon I received actually <I>was</I> the infallible Word of God.<BR/><BR/>If Protestantism is right with regards to Doctrinal Infallibility--in that it is not entrusted to men through the Holy Spirit's guidance--then I cannot even be a Protestant, and at best must resort to Judaism, or perhaps Islam, or else a hippy-airy-fairy theism.<BR/><BR/>That's a lot to lose. So I again reiterate that, if this is the case, it will take a good deal of argumentation to convince me.<BR/><BR/><I>What would you gain?</I> In light of all that I lost? The only possible thing that I could gain was the knowledge that, hey, at least I'm not a dupe! Small consolation.<BR/><BR/><I>How would your faith in Christ be affected?</I><BR/><BR/>If I could still believe in Christ (since my belief in Christ was initially dependent on the testimony of a Church and a Bible that I apparently can no longer trust), it would seem that He couldn't be who He claimed He was, at least insofar as He was powerless to actually fulfil His promise to found and preserve a True Church.<BR/><BR/><I>Be careful here: I'm not asking you to re-consider the infallibility of Scripture;</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, the infallibility of Scripture is a belief contingent on believing in a Church. That is, since the Church gave us the Scripture, if I cannot trust the Church to have done so without error, then I cannot trust the Scripture to be the Word of God. Or, conversely, since the Bible promises a Church free of error, and that Church does not exist, there is one point at least on which the "infallible" word of God has erred.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm asking you to reconsider the notion of the papacy pronoucing its understanding of Scripture as infallible.</I><BR/><BR/>And I've done so, and those are my conclusions. I personally can see no way around it except one--and that is to prove that Protestantism, at least one form of it, or Orthodoxy, is the true keeper of an Infallible understanding. Since Protestantism (and I believe Orthodoxy as well) actually <I>denies</I> this claim, I seem stuck in a logical connundrum. Perhaps you are able to show me the way out. If not, then I am still a Roman Catholic, if only for Puddleglum's reason.<BR/><BR/><I>That's all for now. It's been a sleepless night.<BR/><BR/>Christopher</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately that's all for me as well. No new post.<BR/><BR/>It's Chris' fault for having too stimulating and involved a post :p<BR/><BR/>God bless<BR/>GregoryGregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-2372649946854679272008-02-11T16:58:00.000-05:002008-02-11T16:58:00.000-05:00I think those were good explanations of Catholic d...I think those were good explanations of Catholic doctrine/practise/individuals/etc, Gregory. Your comment definitely improved my understanding of the matters involved. I have jsut one comment:<BR/><BR/>"While the methodology of a Protestant and a Cafeteria Catholic is similar, I would say that it is ultimately a poor comparison for H1 to have used. The selectiveness in Protestantism is inherent in the system, whereas the selectiveness of the "cafeteria Catholic" stems precisely out of disobedience to the system."<BR/><BR/>Actually, I'd say that the selectiveness of Protestantism is "disobedience to the system" insomuch as Protestantism does not recognize the authority of the {Catholic} Church, same as cafeteria Catholics. Protestantism is based, historically, insofar as I understand it, as a rebellion against the teaching authority of the Magisterium.Hidden Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042188431683942338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-44016121375136641732008-02-11T12:09:00.000-05:002008-02-11T12:09:00.000-05:00It's high time I got back to replying to past comm...It's high time I got back to replying to past comments here. Tomorrow I'll have the next Rosary Mystery up, but this forum will stay open for those who care...<BR/><BR/>I'll start off by commenting on Hidden One's comments, even though I for the most part have no quarrel with them (he is on "my side" after all ;) ), but since the next few posts from Chris and Suneal deal with his comments, and since I want to respond to them, I'd better go through it all...<BR/><BR/>Hidden One wrote:<BR/><I>Please forgive me if I am wrong (this comment is basically directed at Chris), but if I may proffer a hypothesis (while trying to tread lightly so as not to offend <B>any</B>body by mistake,) to better understand some of what has been said (most recently by C.J.) it would be this:<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the Protestant position on Tradition as you define it in essence is that Protestants will accept any and all Tradition that they feel is in line with Scripture, which leads to Protestants accepting only the T/tradition that agrees with their personal/organizational interpretation of Scripture (right or wrong), while Catholics adhere to all of (Sacred) Tradition. It thus seems to me that the Protestant position on various traditions and such is like that of of someone who runs a small Christian bookstore and refuses to stock anything he disagrees with. Whatever weight is given to tradition is predominantly given because it agrees with the particular Protestant, not because it is tradition. (As I understand it, if it its weight existed because it is Tradition, than Tradition would carry a particular weight in a particular Protestant's mind irrespectable of whether or not that Protestant agrees with it.)<BR/><BR/>Thus, it seems to me, if I understand it correctly, that the Protestant position (for better or worse)on Tradition is something like that of the 'cafeteria Catholic', who accepts only the Catholic dogmas he or she wants to based solely or mostly on pre-existing conditions and factors, such as upbringing, convenience, and peer pressure.<BR/><BR/>Post-script: Please note that I am not accusing ANYone of ANYthing, merely putting forth hypotheses which are decidedly NOT personal in nature. This is honest hypothesizing and trying to understand, most of which occurred to me roughly a line or two before I wrote it, hence the amateurish writing quality.</I><BR/><BR/>If I can simplify what H1 said, and, H1, correct me if I misstate anything, it would be thus:<BR/><BR/>Chris and Suneal, you have spent a lot of time belabouring the fact that <I>Sola Scriptura</I>, as such, includes tradition, insofar as that tradition can be supported from Scripture. Whatever tradition can't be supported, or even seems to be contradicted by Scripture, is discarded. However, since Protestantism makes use of historical tradition, it is not so intellectually vacuous as the "Solo Scriptura" touted (though not really followed) by so-called evangelical Christianity (I say "so-called" because I'm not sure why I, as a Bible-believing Catholic am not "evangelical", or really what that title actually signifies. But I digress.)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, your argument has been, that since Sola Scriptura, properly understood, utilises Tradition, in what major way does it differ from the Catholic rule of faith, except in its conclusions, other than how much emphasis is placed on one "fount" or the other? In other words, what claim does Catholicism have to a superior system, if both systems are hardly differentiated?<BR/><BR/>Now, if I've misunderstood something in there, please let me know. I'm not trying to labour under false pretenses or misunderstandings, but it has been a while since I've had the chance to discuss stuff, and I might have gotten muddled along the way.<BR/><BR/>To this question, H1 answered, and I concur, that Protestants, even "traditional" ones, only rely on tradition insofar as it lines up with their personal theology. That is, depending on their denominational stance and their personal study of Scripture, they will accept or reject elements of the Church's ancient traditions, rather than those traditions informing or deciding personal or denominational stances.<BR/><BR/>Now, admittedly, it is perhaps a little more grey than that either-or scenario, but it still seems to come down to that fact. And it comes down to it in this manner: The Protestant says "tradition is good where it agrees with or doesn't contradict Scripture, and so we accept certain traditions, such as the Trinity, but reject others, such as Purgatory, based on Scripture." However, another Protestant, also practicing a very informed Sola Scriptura, might say he agrees with the tradition of Purgatory, as did C.S. Lewis, but not with other ancient traditions.<BR/><BR/>When it comes right down to it, the differences within Protestantism stem from what basically becomes a subjective understanding of Scripture informing a person or group about which traditions are valid, and which "contradict Scripture", instead of allowing the traditions of the Church to inform one's interpretation of Scripture. And it is this ultimately subjective attribute of Sola Scriptura that prompts me to repeatedly level the accusation that it has caused the divisions within Protestantism and leads ultimately to doctrinal relativism.<BR/><BR/>Hidden One compares this selectivism with regard to Tradition, the admission or dismissal of particular traditions in Protestantism, to the obedience to or rejection of beliefs by those popularly dubbed "Cafeteria Catholics", which is a derogatory term leveled at persons who call themselves Catholic and yet freely reject certain Catholic teachings (particularly teachings that more conservative-minded Catholics view as tantamount in importance, whether or not they actually are. This term is most commonly used to refer to those who deny the Church's teaching on things like abortion or homosexuality).<BR/><BR/>While the methodology of a Protestant and a Cafeteria Catholic is similar, I would say that it is ultimately a poor comparison for H1 to have used. The selectiveness in Protestantism is inherent in the system, whereas the selectiveness of the "cafeteria Catholic" stems precisely out of disobedience to the system.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that's all I'll say with regard to H1's comment. I hope it helps. I'll turn, in light of what I've said, to address the replies to his comment:<BR/><BR/>Suneal wrote:<BR/><I>To Hidden One,<BR/><BR/>You said: <BR/><BR/>"It seems to me that the Protestant position on Tradition as you define it in essence is that Protestants will accept any and all Tradition that they feel is in line with Scripture, which leads to Protestants accepting only the T/tradition that agrees with their personal/organizational interpretation of Scripture (right or wrong), while Catholics adhere to all of (Sacred) Tradition."<BR/><BR/>Do Catholics REALLY adhere to all of (sacred) tradition?</I><BR/><BR/>Suneal, your question and consequent argument are based on a flaw of understanding with regard to what Sacred Tradition is, and how Dogma develops and comes to be promulgated as such. One or two (such as you mention) dissenting voices do not an alternative tradition make. That is, because St. Augustine and St. Thomas, according to you, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, it did not mean that there was no belief or tradition in the Church regarding it. To answer your question more specifically, though, the Church relies on Sacred Tradition--that is, Apostolic Tradition, as it was handed down through the Bishops. However, throughout the centuries, other traditions also enter into popular thought that are not binding and are not necessary to be believed (and some which may even be harmful). There are times when certain beliefs are challenged, and then the case is brought under review to decide based on the testimony of ancient writers, led by the guidence of the Holy Spirit, whether a particular long-held belief is of Apostolic Tradition or not. When it is decided so, it is bound infallbily as Dogma, and becomes binding on all faithful Catholics to believe it or follow it (in the case of a moral precept).<BR/><BR/>It may be, in the case of certain doctrines, that there simply is no issue regarding their authenticity until a rather late date. For example, the Canon of the Old Testament was handed down to the Church from the LXX, and the Church always maintained that it consisted of the 46 books we have today. This canon was not disputed except here and there in the early centuries, and it was not felt that an official declaration was needed until Trent, when, during the Reformation, Martin Luther and those following him eschewed the deuterocanonical books. It was only in response to this action that the Church infallibly declared that those seven books are, in fact, inspired by God just as the other 66 books accepted by Protestants and Catholics alike. It is for the reason of being challenged that most beliefs were defined dogmatically.<BR/><BR/>However, there are other times when certain beliefs are defined because a Pope feels that it would strengthen the faith of the people. It was for this reason that the Assumption of Mary in to Heaven was dogmatically defined. It wasn't being challenged or questioned, but because of the state of faith in Europe (particularly France) in the last century, the Pope felt that the defining of a dogma might ignite and inspire faith in people. I suppose history will judge the success of that decision, but I mention it in the interest of being thorough. The Assumption was believed in the Church, and perhaps even taken for granted in many cases, until the definition, which made it a binding doctrine. In all the only major impact it had on the life of the Church was to add a feast day to the liturgical calendar! The addition of a feast, of course, being where inspiration to faith was to come in--especially in most European countries where such feasts included an actual day off work.<BR/><BR/><I>If they did, then they would not preach the immaculate conception as binding and irrefutable doctrine, that Mary was born without sin, for the leading Catholic Scholastic theologian which the Council of Trent recommended as such, Thomas Aquinas, contrary to John Duns Scotus whom both he and St. Bernard of Clairvaux refuted earlier in the 12th century, did not subscribe to this doctrine, thus they both held Mary REALLY needed a Savior, for actual sin in her life (through being conceived with the sin nature- even though believing she did not actually sin and later she was made immaculate in her prenatal state).</I><BR/><BR/>First of all, since Duns Scotus actually comes later in history than St. Bernard and St. Thomas, it cannot with any accuracy say that he was refuted by them. To be refuted, you must make an argument which is subsequently overturned by a counter-argument. The counter-argument cannot come first. Consider earlier, when I said that your arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity were refuted by St. Jerome. I did not mean that St. Jerome made an argument that already saw your argument and answered it before it was made, but rather, that your argument was identical to one Helvidius, whom St. Jerome had refuted. Since your argument added nothing to that of Helvidius, it can be said that St. Jerome refuted your argument. <BR/><BR/>In the case of John Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas, Scotus forwarded a position regarding the Immaculate Conception that actually furthered the discussion, answering Thomas' objections to the belief in a manner which Thomas hadn't dealt with in his writings, and which he wasn't around to refute after it was put forth by Duns Scotus.<BR/><BR/>Now, no one building on Thomas' thought was able to overturn Scotus' theory in line with Thomas' thought, and, in fact, even though St. Thomas didn't personally believe in the Immaculate Conception, his thoughts on theology as a whole, and on Mary in particular, are actually credited with paving the way for the doctrine as it is defined today!<BR/><BR/>Secondly, your claim that <I>[St. Thomas and St. Bernard] both held Mary REALLY needed a Savior, for actual sin in her life (through being conceived with the sin nature- even though believing she did not actually sin and later she was made immaculate in her prenatal state)</I> is mistaken on more than a few points. The first is that Catholic Tradition is very unanimous on the fact that Mary did <I>not</I> commit "actual sin" as you claim, though your use of the phrase might have been an accident, since you later state that they believed that Mary never actually sinned. There is a theological difference between Original Sin and Actual Sin, and one does not commit Actual Sin simply by being born with Original Sin. The Church has always been of the mind that Mary did not commit Actual Sin all through the question of her immaculate conception.<BR/><BR/>Further, you are right to say that Mary needed a Saviour, and that it was this need of a Saviour that was the stumbling block for St. Thomas in accepting her Immaculate Conception, for he could not reason through how both could coincide. It was precisely on this point that Duns Scotus' contribution was so important, for it put forth how Mary's conception free from Original Sin did not exclude her from the need for a Saviour, but was, in fact, the result of a singular saving act on behalf of Jesus Christ in view of the merits gained by His Passion and Death.<BR/><BR/>As such, trying to bolster the argument against the Immaculate Conception on the grounds that Mary needed a Saviour and that the Church held that she actually sinned is wrong on both counts. The first, again, is that even according to the Immaculate Conception dogma, the Church holds that Mary needed a Saviour nonetheless, and the second, because it was never accepted teaching in the Church that Mary sinned.<BR/><BR/><I>It was the Jesuits with their strong push for the immaculate conception and their zeal for Mariology that helped win the day for John Duns Scotus.</I><BR/><BR/>Having done some research, I don't see the Jesuits as having played a huge role in the definition. Do you have a source on that? From what I've seen, it was the Fransiscans who were most vocal, and, ironically, the very Marian Dominicans who opposed it the longest (owing, likely, to the fact that St. Thomas was himself one of their rank).<BR/><BR/><I>It was not until Pope Pius IX made the decree in 1854, the Ineffabilis Deus, declaring the Immaculate Conception an essential dogma for all the church, that this dogma became the "proper interpretation" according to Catholic Tradition.</I><BR/><BR/>And, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, had St. Thomas known of the definition that would be promulgated by the Pope, he would have been its strongest supporter rather than its detractor, for the Catholic dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception upholds St. Thomas' teaching with regard to Mary, that she did need a Saviour, and that her salvation was one of preservation from sin rather than rescue from sin. Had he been able to hear Duns Scotus' argument that "protection" from sin and "preservation" from sin were not somehow mutually exclusive, much of the controversy might have been averted.<BR/><BR/>And a note on Thomas being a Doctor--that means that, as far as his writings and teachings are concerned, they are consonant with and accurately reflect and expound the De Fide teachings of his day--not that he was right and to be regarded as the final authority on every issue in dispute.<BR/><BR/>From the editor's note to the Summa Theologica's treatment of the Immaculate Conception:<BR/>The question is answered thus: St. Thomas as a Doctor of the Church and in matters which were not then "de fide," is a witness to the expression of the faith of his time. Hence his line of argument coincides with, because it follows, that of St. Bernard, Peter<BR/>Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure. It was not likely that St. Thomas would differ from the great masters of his time, who failed to understand that the grace of redemption might at the same time be one of preservation and prevention. Nor is it likely that St. Thomas had any reliable information about the movement* in progress at that time towards a belief in the Immaculate Conception. [*Principally in England, where, owing to the influence of St. Anselm (1109), the doctrine was maintained by Eadmer (1137). Nicolas of St. Albans (1175), Osbert of Clare (1170), Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (1253), William of Ware (1300), who was the master of Duns Scotus (1308)]. No doubt he knew something of it, but the names of its promoters would have weighed little with him as against those of Bernard, Albert, Peter, Alexander, and Bonaventure. And it must not be forgotten that among those who upheld the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not a few ascribed the privilege as being absolute and not one of preservation and Redemption. Hence it is that St. Thomas insists on two things: (1) that the Mother of God was redeemed, and (2) that the grace of her sanctification was a grace of preservation. And, be it remarked in conclusion, these two points, so much insisted on by St. Thomas, are at the very basis of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.<BR/><BR/><I>Going further back to the church Fathers, none of them believed Mary "immaculate from conception," although a few held her as sinless.</I><BR/><BR/>Rather, nearly all of them held her as sinless, and preserved as such from the womb. When her complete sanctification occurred was not one of major discussion, though it was held that John the Baptist was preserved sinless, having been sanctified in the womb (as the Angel had foretold, and which was considered to have happened at Mary's visitation to Elizabeth). And since Mary was considered greater than John, her state of "full of grace" was considered greater than that of John as well, though in what manner was not fully discussed.<BR/><BR/><I>Augustine writes: "He [Christ], therefore, alone having become man, but still continuing to be God, never had any sin, nor did he assume a flesh of sin, though born of a maternal flesh of sin" (De Peccatorum Meritis, Bk II, Ch 38). Interesting how selective the Pope gets in 1854 about his beloved tradition which is supposedly binding, when ignoring the church Fathers' understanding on this subject and even many of the leading scholastic theologians.</I><BR/><BR/>St. Augustine also said, "We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin." [On Nature and Grace, ch 42]<BR/><BR/>It seems the selective citation accusation is a double-edged sword.<BR/><BR/><I>The point is this, "Tradition" as binding to Catholics is already "cafeteria Catholic," even before a person by their choosiness decides to make it even possibly more so.</I><BR/><BR/>It is not simply "tradition" or even "Scripture" which is binding to a Catholic, for both the Scriptures and Tradition needs definition and interpretation. Not every word of every Catholic author is "Apostolic Tradition" any more than every word of the Pope is infallible. It is the Magisterium of the Church, guided indefectably and infallibly prevented from teaching error by the Holy Spirit, which promulgates, defines, and defends the Faith of the Church.<BR/><BR/>Thus a Pope, after much research and prayer, saying that such-and-such a writer was wrong on such-and-such a disputed point in that writer's time, is not selectively discarding Sacred Tradition. He is exercising his office in preserving and defining that true Tradition, and developing the Church's understanding of it through logical extention. This is quite a bit different than the lay Catholic indulging in "cafeterianism", since the lay Catholic has no such authority to make such decisions for himself, whereas that is precisely the role and office of the Pope as successor to Peter.<BR/><BR/><I>By the way this specificity strikes me as no different from your critique of Protestantism that according to you, Hidden One, "leads to Protestants accepting only the T/tradition that agrees with their personal/organizational interpretation of Scripture."</I><BR/><BR/>That was why Hidden One was specifically criticising/condemning Cafeteria Catholicism.<BR/><BR/><I>You also said this Hidden One:<BR/><BR/>"Whatever weight is given to tradition is predominantly given because it agrees with the particular Protestant, not because it is tradition. (As I understand it, if it its weight existed because it is Tradition, than Tradition would carry a particular weight in a particular Protestant's mind irrespectable of whether or not that Protestant agrees with it.)"<BR/><BR/>It seems to me, that Catholics, and in this particular case I raise here, Pope Pius IX is also guilty as charged by you, Hidden One.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, it is precisely the Pope's office to do just what Pope Pius IX did. He did not neglect "two of the greatest theological minds in Catholicism", as is evidenced by the fact that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception relied heavily on those writers, while coming to a different conclusion from them based on other arguments that rounded out the debate.<BR/><BR/><I>He selected what "books" he liked, so to speak, neglecting two of the greatest theological minds in Catholicism,</I><BR/><BR/>Is that what he did? Was it so simplistic? I wonder.<BR/><BR/><I>Augustine (although technically speaking he was not Catholic in the modern sense)</I><BR/><BR/>I'm curious, in what sense wasn't Augustine a "Catholic in the modern sense", while St. Thomas Aquinas was? How do you make that distinction? Especially since it was reading St. Augustine that initially demonstrated the truth of the "modern" Catholic Church to me? He was certainly more Catholic than any other denomination out there, being an ordained bishop and subjecting himself to the Church and the Pope.<BR/><BR/>It always seems an interesting thing for people to say, that such-and-such an ancient Catholic wasn't, in fact, a Catholic. If it was because you think he would have been something else, had "something else" existed, then why not St. Thomas Aquinas, since the same "something else" didn't exist in his day, either?<BR/><BR/><I>and Aquinas, to come to his conclusion, and doing so without the support of a council, something no Pope before him had ever done.</I><BR/><BR/>Is that so? From what source do you draw that conclusion? And, for that matter, where does it say that the Pope needs the support of a council? The council needs the pope to be authoritative, not the other way around.<BR/><BR/><I>Where I wonder was the weight of the "Tradition" that did not agree with him, most of which was centuries old, that in the end he neglected in making such a binding, sweeping declaration of the "immaculate conception"?</I><BR/><BR/>It was balanced against the weight of the Tradition that <I>did</I> agree with him, which also was centuries old. In fact, it was the discerning between the two, and even the synthesis of the two, which became the Immaculate Conception dogma. Had he declared it to be untrue, we could be having the same conversation protesting his dismissal of St. Anselm (who also was a doctor of the Church) and others who advocated the Immaculate Conception. That there was disagreement about a matter of faith that was not De Fide is to be expected--but when and where it occurs, it necessitates a dogmatic pronouncement.<BR/><BR/><I>As it stands now, there is much contradiction in Tradition on this subject, even more so than the loose ends Scripture leaves.</I><BR/><BR/>The contradiction is precisely why the definition was needed. It was not always believed and understood the same way by everyone, and so a decision regarding what was right and what was wrong needed to be made. This again is the fundamental difference between the Catholic rule of faith and Protestant sola scriptura. Catholicism has a living Magisterium whose office is precisely to make decisions in this sort of circumstance. When a similar circumstance arises in Protestantism, there is no one to arbitrate and weigh the evidence and the logic and decide--and even if someone did, there is no reason why that decision is binding on the next guy, and so split after split happens and denominations continue to multiply.<BR/><BR/><I>The "evolving" idea of Catholic Tradition, well, I guess that has to exist to help Tradition appear "unanimous."</I><BR/><BR/>The "evolving" idea of Catholic Tradition is what's known as "The Holy Spirit who will guide you into all truth" through the continued study and prayer regarding this or that issue. The exact same process occurred with the definition of the Holy Trinity, which had clearer Scriptural evidence, yet which still needed some 400 years to hammer down.<BR/><BR/><I>But even the Greek Orthodox Church considers Tradition as "once for all," therefore they have always been more consistent in their doctrines.</I><BR/><BR/>You mean, that Greek Orthodox Church which has formally embraced heresy on seven different occassions (though, admittedly, later changing their minds and reforming)? Seems pretty consistent to me.<BR/><BR/><I>They also do not hold the "immaculate conception" as true, and they have to be considered part of "Tradition."</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, they do hold to a form of the Immaculate Conception (and much of the earliest support from Tradition for Mary's sinlessness comes from the East). They simply formulate the same doctrine in a reverse/positive sense. Whereas the West emphasises her protection from sin, the East points to her utter holiness, calling Mary <I>panagia</I>, or "All-Holy".<BR/><BR/><I>I mentioned Tradition has not been unanimous on Mariology any more than has Scripture. This is still true. So I believe Chris' very perceptive question still begs a satisfactory answer. <BR/><BR/>Suneal</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, which question was that? I think I might have answered it since you made that statement.<BR/><BR/>The ideas of ancient Catholics are not all equally "Tradition" in the sense which Catholics refer to binding Apostolic Tradition. And it is precisely the role of the Pope, and the college of bishops in union with him, as at the various ecumenical councils, to decide and define which doctrines are binding on all the Church, as they rely on the testimony of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition to guide their decision--but mostly upon the Holy Spirit and His charism of infallibility, protecting the Church from embracing formal heresy and thus defecting from the faith.<BR/><BR/>Alright, that was a lot of work, and I'm out of time for today. Nice to make headway again, though. I'll hit up Chris' response to H1's comment, and go on from there. Maybe even today, if I have time. But I doubt it.<BR/><BR/>And, someday, after I finish the Rosary posts, I'll be doing a series on the four Marian Dogmas, as well as other formal apologetic posts about Mary. I intend, therefore, to go back and cover in a more deductive-essay fashion a lot of what I've briefly replied to here. I say that in order to indicate that I intend to provide a more well-rounded description and discussion of each of the dogmas than I perhaps have done here so far.<BR/><BR/>God bless<BR/>GregoryGregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-27000131190334446972008-02-02T23:45:00.000-05:002008-02-02T23:45:00.000-05:00Jesus loves me, this I know,for the Bible, tells m...Jesus loves me, this I know,<BR/>for the Bible, tells me so,<BR/>little ones to Him belong<BR/>they are weak, but He is strong.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Jesus loves me,<BR/>Yes, Jesus loves me,<BR/>Yes Jesus loves me,<BR/>the Bible tells me so.<BR/><BR/>"and hope does not disappoint us, for God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us" (Rom 5:4).<BR/><BR/>"in this is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the Atoning sacrifice for our sins" (I Jn 4:10).<BR/><BR/>Amen.sunealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13698675394991882576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-69573839915321859192008-01-29T14:47:00.000-05:002008-01-29T14:47:00.000-05:00Hey Remy, It's good to hear from you too, and yeah...Hey Remy, <BR/>It's good to hear from you too, and yeah, we should catch up sometime.<BR/><BR/>With regards to equality in the Bible, in the passage in question, check out verses 11 and 12:<BR/>"However, in the Lord, though woman is nothing without man, man is nothing without woman; and though woman came from man, so does every man come from a woman, and everything comes from God (NJB)." Further, other passages talk about there being "neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), and Ephesians 5:21-33, which advocates submission to each other, and while it belabours the wife's submission to her husband as the Church submits to Christ, it concludes with the corollory that the husband must love the wife so much that he is ready to die for her as Christ died for the Church. So if there's a case to be made for male headship and authority (and there is), it comes with a boatload of responsibility which includes death.<BR/><BR/>That is to say, men and women are equal, but different. We each have a different role to play in the family and in the Church.<BR/><BR/>Plus, the fact that, when reading Genesis one, we see a progression from lower to higher, and lesser to greater, as the seven days are recounted, it has been argued that, since woman was created <I>last</I>, she represents the pinacle of God's creation...<BR/><BR/>I would definitely agree that your gay teacher and his "life partner" are seriously going to have a detrimental effect on the child's upbringing. And, homosexual couples can adopt now?! I knew it. My parents had to wait 15 years to adopt me, and ... yeah, anyway, that's about to turn into an unproductive rant...<BR/><BR/>I don't think starting an "anti-anti-family" group at your school will do anything except make your teacher your enemy, which will likely not do anything except hurt your grades. But definitely pray. Our Mother is always a good choice. I also found a short prayer for spiritual adoption. It's meant for an unborn child, to protect them from abortion, but I adapted it: "Dear Jesus, child of Mary, I love You and thank You for Your unconditional love. I plead with You to protect the life of the child whom I have spiritually adopted and whose life is threatened by homosexuality. May this child be allowed to grow in wisdom, age and strength in Your presence and in the sight of all. Amen."<BR/><BR/>I'd also suggest a Novena to the Holy Family for the Protection of the Family:<BR/><BR/>Say this prayer once a day for 9 days:<BR/>"Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, bless me and grant me the grace of openly professing as I should, with courage and without human respect, the faith that I received as your gift in holy Baptism.<BR/>Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, bless me and grant me the grace of sharing as I should in the defense and propagation of the Faith when duty calls, whether by word or by the sacrifice of my possessions and my life.<BR/>Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, bless me and grant me the grace of loving my family and others in mutual charity as I should, and establish us in perfect harmony of thought, will, and action under the rule and guidance of the shepherds of the Church.<BR/>Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, bless me and grant me the grace of conforming my life fully as I should to the commandments of God's law and those of His holy Church, so as to live always in that charity which they set forth. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I ask in particular this special favour... (mention silently your special intentions). Amen."<BR/><BR/>Seemed to fit both for your desire to take a stand, and to pray for the child.<BR/><BR/>And don't worry about being too "colloquial." I've enjoyed the change of pace. And it is an <I>open</I> forum.<BR/><BR/>God bless<BR/>GregoryGregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-27198949033862621502008-01-29T00:20:00.000-05:002008-01-29T00:20:00.000-05:00Wow, that certainly is a good point of view, altho...Wow, that certainly is a good point of view, although it is still difficult to draw the line between anti-feminism and equality in this passage. There is no real statement of interdependency, no clear-cut one, I mean, its mostly, no matter which way you slice it, leaning towards the male, though, that's not so bad...males have their roles in society as they should, since primeval times they have been the providers and protectors, therefore I do think it is logical to accept that a male could "be a man" as you stated, to hold up his responsibility. Gender equality is not clear cut, as men are evolutionarily dominant over women in some aspects, and of course vice versa for women. I'm sure I've come across many examples of gender equality in the Bible, I just can't quite pull them up right now...:), I'm very tired, I just finished exams.<BR/><BR/>It's funny how this works out though, because I just so happen to have the same opinion about the people who wear their pyjamas to church. I grew up in an Eastern European Catholic Polish family, which pretty much says right there what the tradition in my family is when it comes to dress code. Showing you don't care how you present yourself pretty much says you don't care about church or God for that matter.<BR/><BR/>I do have one question for you though, of a little more consequential matter than the previous. It has come to my attention that a gay teacher of mine has "married" and has adopted a kid. I dunno if I've ever been so helpless. Is there a prayer I can devote for the child? Perhaps to Mary? It may sound a bit juvenile or whatever, but, to be frank...a kid with no Moms?????? That's just. plain. wrong. I mean, how is that kid going to be affected in the future?? I mean, I can't even dare to think of starting some sort of anti-anti-family group, cuz, well, I'd get the boot. Hard. But anyways, perhaps this is a little to colloquial for this forum so I'll leave it at that.<BR/><BR/>I hope we can catch up soon.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yours in Him<BR/><BR/>RemyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-54432204603044070102008-01-28T10:12:00.000-05:002008-01-28T10:12:00.000-05:00Suneal, sorry to see you go again. I will certain...Suneal, sorry to see you go again. I will certainly be praying for you and all your endeavours.<BR/><BR/>I will, nevertheless, finish replying to all that you have written here so far. I'll leave it to Chris to let you know when I'm done, though, and you can feel free to respond, or feel free not to.<BR/><BR/>Craig, I'm not entirely sure how accurate your friend's observation regarding Catholic countries being poorer than Protestant ones, or whether the religious affiliation is the main factor. Obviously, comparing Protestant USA to Catholic Mexico is going to skew the data.<BR/><BR/>However, unless I'm mistaken, Italy, France, Spain, Poland, and other very Catholic European nations are not poverty-stricken. Where they are or have been have often been the result of foreign invasion and oppression, such as the Communist rule of Poland or the British oppression of the Irish. <BR/><BR/>The history of Central and South America is also rather complex and involved one, and the poor nations of that region are such for reasons beyond Catholicism's influence.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, as Hidden One suggested, the argument of your friend could be simply that Catholicism has such a strong influence in poorer nations because the Catholic missions there have met the needs of an already poor populace, such as the Daughters of Charity in Calcutta, India.<BR/><BR/>To perhaps point out the ultimate flaw in the argument, I could turn it around by pointing out that Protestant countries have been the ones who more typically have endorsed slavery, even into our own times. The United States rather late emancipation, and England's own rather late Emancipation compared to the rest of Europe, as well as the predominately "Protestant" South African Apartheid. Now obviously there were other factors involved, and it's rather simplistic to say that Protestantism supports slavery (It was, on the other hand, Catholicism, which very early on, with St. Patrick--c. 350--, who began to speak out against slavery). In the same way, it's rather simplistic to say that Catholicism makes nations poor.<BR/><BR/>Remy,<BR/>I believe the key in interpreting certain passages of Scripture is to read it with the original intent of the author. In a case such as this, what is the point or principle that Paul is trying to elucidate?<BR/><BR/>The main thrust of the passage is the interdependency of men and women, and the specific created order of authority with which God imbued us. That is, just as God is head of Man, men are the head of women. That is, in a marriage relationship, while we should aspire to equality and mutual submission, there comes a point where the man must "be a man". It's not that the man dominates his wife, but he does have that authority to make the call where no mutual resolution can be reached.<BR/><BR/>This passage comes particularly in the context of Paul's writing to the Corinthians as to proper conduct in the liturgical setting, and the Christian Church's separation from idolatry and paganism (the passage is oddly sandwiched between a discussion of the Eucharist). This also gives us a clue to Paul's intent--that Christians are to be modest and decorous at Mass. In an age of Temple Prostitution in paganism, in a city renowned for sexual licence, Paul is advising the women to cover up, in part out of a sign of submission, and in part out of modesty's sake, in order to keep the worship of the Church pure and free from distraction.<BR/><BR/>The key to understanding how "literal" the passage is, is in verse 10, where Paul says "For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (NKJV)." The veil or whathaveyou, is a sign of their modesty and submission. But symbols aren't universal. The principle is the modesty and submission. How that is demonstrated, I think, is up to the culture in which it is demonstrated. That is why St. Paul writes, "Judge for yourself whether it is fitting..." (v. 14), and concludes by saying that if this is really a problem, then Paul says that the Church has no such custom at all (v.16). That is, what Paul is advocating is not Christian Law, but more his suggestion for keeping propriety at Mass. And the principle is one that I think still stands, and needs to be taught. Maybe we here in Canada aren't so distracted by women's hair, but how often, especially in the summer, do we see girls in short skirts and low-cut tops going up for Communion. And, quite honestly, it is distracting! There should be a renewed emphasis on Modesty (and dress code) in Church, I think. Even for us guys. If Christ the King is truly present, then His courtiers should dress appropriately.<BR/><BR/>One last comment on interpreting such tricky passages. How do we know what's a cultural recommendation vs. a perpetually binding rule? We must always read Scripture with the mind of the Church. That is, it's not our job to read the Bible in order to "figure things out for ourselves." We should always consult the writings of the saints or papal encyclicals, and, of course, attend Mass and other opportunities for Bible Study.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that's all I've got time for today, but I should have time tomorrow to come back and continue where I left off, above.<BR/><BR/>God bless<BR/>GregoryGregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-68743762374062028812008-01-27T14:59:00.000-05:002008-01-27T14:59:00.000-05:00@Craig:I personally think the whole think is somet...@Craig:<BR/><BR/>I personally think the whole think is something of a moot point. There is little better than poverty for inspiring humility, charity, and avoiding having to go through the "eye of the needle".<BR/><BR/>I think Catholicism (indeed, Christianity as a whole) is spreading best in poor countries because the poor are most willing to admit that they need a Saviour. It's a very humbling concept.Hidden Onehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042188431683942338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-55073227311984120002008-01-25T16:49:00.000-05:002008-01-25T16:49:00.000-05:00Hey Greg,Economics is probably not a great way to ...Hey Greg,<BR/>Economics is probably not a great way to evaluate the truthfulness of a religion. But I heard a theory a while ago and I wondered what you would say to it. I heard that countries where Catholicism thrives are generally very poor. The person telling me this theory supposed that Catholicism made the countries poor, although I don't know if that is true.<BR/>Oddly, I would think that christian countries are generally wealthy. Do you think that protestantism is a better formula for financial wealth than catholicism? (as an unintended secondary side effect of the belief system)Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02936786313136100979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-73707381438176339432008-01-24T15:44:00.000-05:002008-01-24T15:44:00.000-05:00Hey Greg,It's been a while since I've asked you an...Hey Greg,<BR/><BR/>It's been a while since I've asked you anything remotely related to Catholicism, however I think that I have stumbled upon a Bible verse of relative controversy. I do not know how to interpret it other than it is, but perhaps you can shed some light as to what Paul is saying. The passage is 1 Corinthians 11.1-16... forgive me not writing the passage for all to see, but I'm a little busy at the moment, so I'll cut to the chase... blunt anti- feminism and head coverings ? Doesn't seem very Christian to me (Islam?). I see you've started a rather lengthy theological debate... anyhow, please answer me, and I hope you are well.<BR/><BR/>God Bless<BR/>-RemyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31142535.post-18037936815971240252008-01-23T01:40:00.000-05:002008-01-23T01:40:00.000-05:00Gregory said;"My logic as to why one should accept...Gregory said;<BR/><BR/>"My logic as to why one should accept Tradition as par with Scripture comes from Scripture itself:<BR/>"For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe" (1 Thess 2:13 NKJV, emphasis mine).<BR/>"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15 NKJV, emphasis mine).<BR/><BR/>The Bible makes it clear in various other places (John 20:30; 2 John 12, Jude 3), that the Biblical texts were never intended to be an exhaustive account of Christ's life, or of the teachings of the Apostles. In the above-quoted references, among others, St. Paul makes it clear that the spoken word of the Apostles was just as much the Word of God as the written word, and that the Traditions of the Apostles were just as binding whether or not they were ever written down. Moreover, these traditions (specifically those not written down, according to 2 Tim 2:2) were to be entrusted to the leaders of the Church in successive generations and passed on. It is this that the Catholic Church refers to as "Sacred Tradition" or "Apostolic Tradition", and those entrusted with it, namely the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, who comprise the Magisterium. We both agree in the necessity of Tradition, apparently. But Catholicism takes it one step further, saying that it is just as binding and authoritative as Scripture, stemming from the same source, which is the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles, and through their successors."<BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/>Gregory, how are you? <BR/><BR/>I don't really know what to say at this point to you. Does it matter what I say? In the end, it seems all my logic contrary to the Magisterium, which for all intense purposes equals Tradition in Catholicism (the Catholic lense of selectivity), is mute, wrong, misled, of no validity. I think Catholics have some awesome points. I think Gregory, you have made some great points. Namely, the importance of tradition in preserving the Christian faith as well as it did. You will recall at Aspiring Cynic I said as much before.<BR/><BR/>With regards your above point, Paul in I Thes 2:15, is referring to any "message or letter come from us, to the effect the day of the Lord is already come" (II Thes 2:2). Verse 15 says, "stand firm and hold to the traditions which were taught, whether by word or by letter from us." So "message" and letter basically comprise the word "tradition." I don't see anything in what you said, that is compelling me to believe tradition here does not equal what Paul taught by letter. I believe what the Gospel is written, is our best reliable source of all tradition, even as Jesus did regarding the Old Testament, who appealed to Scripture, not the Jewish traditions to make His authoritative points. Again, as I believe, the tradition or the "people of God" are enfolded within Scripture. So no problem Gregory, tradition in this case equals Scripture. Afterall, Paul's exhortation to them, was a letter of "tradition," which you and the Magisterium use to support some "extraeneous tradition" called the "magisterium." Where in Scipture do I find the "magisterium?" A pretty big jump for you to attach them to this or any other Scriptural reference about "tradition." <BR/><BR/>I'm getting to the same old place pretty fast Gregory, I'm starting to care very little about continuing this unedifying conversation we are engaged in. Listen, you are enthused about your faith, I can admire that much at least, even if I find your logic less compelling the more we discuss. I guess the Catholic "antidote" is not killing the Protestant "virus" in me. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I am wondering if I could not better spend this time, in fulfilling what God has called me to, pastoral ministry, to know Christ as my life, and to count all things but loss for Him. I throw this out there for any whom the Lord may wish to pray for me, that I fulfill my ministry. For I don't think I want to be a "professional" at this either, Gregory. <BR/><BR/>So peace, man. Take it easy.<BR/><BR/>Sunealsunealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13698675394991882576noreply@blogger.com