Recently, we've seen some interesting thinking on another blog.
I'll draw your attention to these statements:
"Again, I continue to be misunderstood about a fundamental point (something I’ve underscored over and over again): Just as an evangelical is not defined by majority opinion about what evangelicals believe, a Catholic is not defined by official pronouncements about what Catholics believe."
and from here:
"While we, as Protestants, may interpret Trent and other official statements prima facie, we have to be careful not to require all Catholics to interpret their documents the way we do."
I'll just say this much. It may sound nifty and attractive to some to say that we shouldn't take Roman Catholic official pronouncements as not being definitional of what Catholics believe, etc., but why should we take this sort of commentary seriously when Pope Benedict himself is saying that Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation? Catholicism has a particular rule of faith, and when the individual Romanist acts like an evangelical, it is in spite of, not in accordance with that rule of faith. It is by no means problematic to interpret Trent and these sorts of statements as not representative of Catholicism, when they are coming from the Magisterium, indeed, the Pope himself. It is no more unfair to Catholics to interpret these documents according to their original intent, as did Bellarmine, et.al., when the Pope himself has taken it upon himself to do it for us. So, if Benedict says so, why shouldn't we?
"While we, as Protestants, may interpret Trent and other official statements prima facie, we have to be careful not to require all Catholics to interpret their documents the way we do."
ReplyDeleteRight...except that Protestants affirm the right to private interpretation while the Vatican denies it. If they wanna play with Protestant toys, they're gonna have to leave the Roman playground.
If and when Dan Wallace trades in his brain to personally adopt Eastern superstition, no one should be surprised:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/06/26/what-i-have-learned-from-the-greek-orthodox-2/
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/07/03/51-protestant-2/
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/07/09/paul-and-justification-by-faith/
a Catholic is not defined by official pronouncements about what Catholics believe.
ReplyDeleteIf a lay Catholic doesn't completely following the official teachings of their church, then they are no longer Catholic.
Baltimore Catechism, no. 3 lesson 12:
…Catholics accept all the doctrines of faith and morals which were taught by Our Lord and the apostles and are proposed by the Church for belief and practice. A person who deliberately denies even one of the doctrines of the Church cannot be a Catholic. The Church is one in faith.
Catholics are subject to their respective bishops who rule them. They must recognize the supreme authority of the Pope in matters of religion. A person who deliberately refuses to accept the legitimate and supreme authority of the Pope and the bishops in matters of religion cannot be a Catholic.
Catechism of St. Pius X, Article 9:
31 Q: Are we obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us?
A: Yes, we are obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us, and Jesus Christ declares that he who does not believe is already condemned.
32 Q: Are we also obliged to do all that the Church commands?
A: Yes, we are obliged to do all that the Church commands, for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of the Church: "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me."
I think this latest affirmation from the Pope is great, especially in the light of the confusion by some Protestants as you have highlighted here. I also know many Catholics who need this affirmation.
Amen to that final sentiment, Carrie.
ReplyDelete