Al Kimel’s reply to Evan May is generating some activity in Kimel’s combox.
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1365
Let’s sample the reaction:
“9. Perry Robinson Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Well, we all know that Ignatius of Antioch was SUCH the Calvinist. Pfft! Even if Ignatius wasn’t “Catholic” Catholic, he sure as hell wasn’t Protestant. It would be interesting for Evan to explain how Ignatius is so Catholic in his theology at such an early stage.”
Actually, it doesn’t call for any special explanation to account for “how Ignatius is so Catholic in his theology at such an early stage.”
The social structure of the Roman Empire was quite hierarchical, and this secular model carried over into the church. The episcopate was the ecclesiastical counterpart to the principate. Likewise, apostolic succession was the ecclesiastical counterpart to dynastic rule.
Likewise, ecclesiology had a parallel development in sacramentology. Only a priest could dispense the sacraments.
What calls for special explanation is not the presence proto-Catholicism of Ignatius, but the absence of proto-Catholicism in the NT.
For example, the reason that Baptists, Anglicans, and Presbyterians argue over church polity is because the NT is pretty indifferent to the question. Matters of central concern to Catholicism are peripheral to the NT.
Why should the answers to these questions be so important to us if they were so unimportant to Christ and the Apostles? Should our theological and ecclesiastical priorities take their cue from the Head of the Church (Jesus) and his appointed spokesmen (the Apostles)?
Continuing:
“8. Apolonio Says:
January 30th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Does he [Evan] mean that Ignatius believed in the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception, etc and all the other old J. White type arguments? If that is the case, then I can say no (actually, I should say I don’t know since I really don’t know). Those were not dogmas then. It is ridiculous to think that if we are going to look at the Catholic Church in the beginning, we will see it the way it is now. Even if the Church was not the *modern* Roman *sense*, it does not follow that it was not the Catholic Church.”
Maybe Evan got this “ridiculous” idea from the fact that, according to Vatican I, “If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.”
Moving along:
“The Catholic Church preceded the Bible.”
The OT preceded the Catholic church. Moses preceded St. Paul. Abraham preceded Moses. What church did Abraham attend?
Given the popularity of theistic evolution among Roman Catholics, we could extend the logic of Apolonio’s argument a good deal further: Homo erectus preceded Cro-Magnon, Australopithecus preceded Homo erectus, and so on. I can’t see that the troglodyte rule of faith is very helpful to Apolonio’s cause, unless the first pope was a caveman.
“It is only in the Catholic Church where you can understand the true meaning of the Bible.”
Really? I thought Apolonio just told us “it is ridiculous to think that if we are going to look at the Catholic Church in the beginning, we will see it the way it is now.”
So where do we find the true meaning? The true meaning becomes a moving target.
“No Catholic Church, no Bible.”
Even if this were true, so what? No Moses, no Bible. No Noah, no Bible.
I have trouble with the fact that about half the RCs I meet seem to be saying that the Church has always believed what they believe, while the other half seem to subscribe to Newman's (more reasonable) theory of Doctrinal Development. But none of them seem to want to answer the question that the existence of the other side poses, namely, which is right?
ReplyDeleteAnd "no Adam, no Bible". Herein lies the bankruptcy of all the previous statements. In adopting theistic evolution they rip out the underpinnings for not only the fall and the entry of sin into the world, but also every historical argument for the 'Catholic Church' and the sacraments. If evolution is true in any pre-fall sense then original sin must simply be an evolved human idea and thus baptism can no more wash away original sin than the blood of bulls and goats.
ReplyDeleteSince, as you noted, most of RC arguments for the primacy of the Roman Catholic church rely on a supposed historical accuracy and continuation of the Papal seat (consider the "Moses' seat" argument), do they not incur the anathema of Vat I given that they deny the historical teaching and belief of the literal interpretation and historicity of the Genesis account?
"What calls for special explanation is not the presence proto-Catholicism of Ignatius, but the absence of proto-Catholicism in the NT."
ReplyDeleteThe implied argument here of course is that there is no "proto-catholic" interpretation of Scripture. Steve uses the example of church polity. "Proto-catholicism" is a broad concept, generally linked to the early fathers in regards to beliefs about the Eucharist, Baptismal Generation and Apostolic Succession.
The greater implication of Steve's argument is that these men, perhaps due to the socio-political structures of the time, got it wrong very early, very quickly and very seriously. Consequently (as the argument goes) the church went apostate shortly after the death of the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit (along with Scripture) crowd-surfed over history until they reached the Stage some 1,500 years later.
To Steve's credit, he does seem to take this argument seriously. He would no doubt frame it differently, but I don't think he would make the same mistake that Evan made when Evan inferred Sola Scriptura from Ignatius. http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1365#comments
Comment No# 14 "The early church affirmed Sola Scriptura".