Friday, November 11, 2011

A Bryan Cross Make-Believe Fairy Tale Bait-And-Switch Story

Regarding Luther’s writings on The Theology of the Cross McGrath continues that … “it is important to appreciate the nature of the context” within which Luther was writing about these things. They date …
from a time when Luther’s life was widely regarded as being already forfeited [at the hand of the great, almighty and “infallible” Church”]. The shadow of the cross darkens the pages of [his work Operationes in Psalmos], as Luther wrestles with the relationship between the suffering of Christ upon the cross and those which he himself expected to undergo in the near future. Where was God in all this? It must never be forgotten that Luther was not speculating about the nature of God in the comfort of a university senior common room: he himself was under the threat of death for his theology, and in this very threat he saw a paradigm of the hiddenness of God’s self-revelation both in Christ and the Christian life. When Luther speaks of mors, tribulatio, passio, and so on, he speaks as one who believed himself to be close to experiencing them in their full terror, and as one who recognized in the grim scene at Calvary the fact that God had worked through such experiences in the past, and would work through them in the future.
I want to comment on the not-so-implicit arrogance that simply oozes from Bryan Cross’s Reformation Day article. He compares the Reformation to the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters (and there’s even a big picture of them). Imagine, he posits, that these protests continued for years,
“during which time the community of protesters divided into different factions, each with different beliefs, different demands, and different leaders. But the protests continued for so long that the protesters eventually built makeshift shanties and lived in them, and had children. These children grew up in the protesting communities, and then they too had children, who also grew up in the same communities of protesters, still encamped in the Wall Street district. Over the course of these generations, however, these communities of protesters forgot what it was that they were protesting.”
He continues with the make-believe:
What if Protestantism in its present form is the fractured remains of a Catholic protest movement that began in 1517, but which has long since forgotten not only what it was protesting, but that it was formed by Catholics, in protest over conditions and practices within the Catholic Church? What if Protestantism has forgotten that its original intention was to return to full communion with the Catholic Church when certain conditions were satisfied?
Well, what were those certain conditions? Martin Luther outlined them in no uncertain terms: “[W]e do not fight and damn them because of their bad lives …. I do not consider myself to be pious. But when it comes to whether one teaches correctly about the word of God, there I take my stand and fight. That is my calling. To contest doctrine has never happened until now. Others have fought over life; but to take on doctrine—that is to grab the goose by the neck! … When the word of God remains pure, even if the quality of life fails us, life is placed in a position to become what it ought. That is why everything hinges on the purity of the Word. I have succeeded only if I have taught correctly.” (Cited by Steven Ozment, “The Age of Reform, 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe” (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1980), pgs 315-316 (emphasis added).

In the real world, as in Bryan Cross’s make-believe world, the Roman Catholic Church does not “teach correctly about the Word of God”. And no amount of claiming “interpretive” mastery of the Scriptures fixes that.

But Bryan goes further, and puts make-believe limits on this, and note the bait-and switch. He does not then go on to prove that the Roman Catholic Church does “teach correctly about the Word of God”. What he does do is to imply, “Protestants don’t all agree on the correct teaching, therefore Rome’s method is correct.”

Let us begin to look at Bryan’s reasoning this way.

Consider, there is a totally correct way of understanding the Word of God. It is an ideal, whether anyone gets there or not. Let’s call this perfect understanding “X”.

Luther’s assertion is “Roman teaching is ~X. Roman teaching is “Y”. Even if Luther’s understanding is not quite “X”, it doesn't turn Rome’s teaching into “X”.

In fact, no amount of misunderstanding among Protestant fixes that Roman Catholic “~X”.

Bryan wants you to think, “Protestants disagree among themselves, therefore Roman Teaching is ‘X’”.

But that does not follow in any way.

From a Protestant perspective, it is very easy, among ourselves, to look at Biblical understanding among modern Biblical scholars – with the ever-better understanding of Greek and Hebrew languages, with the better and better historical understanding, and know that we are coming closer and closer to converging on “X”. Whereas, Rome has bought into “Y”, and “Y is ~X”, and “Y” will never be “X”. That’s the real life behind Bryan’s make-believe bait-and-switch story.

Bryan and his Roman Catholic friends are “hear[ing] but never understand[ing]”, seeing but never perceiving”. Their heart has grown dull, fixed on Rome’s “Y”, as it is, “and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed” to everything but Rome.

And thus, as ongoing generations of Protestants continue “to see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and “turn and be healed,” and we draw closer and closer to Luther’s “purity of the Word”.

35 comments:

  1. John,

    You wrote:

    What he does do is to say, “Protestants don’t all agree on the correct teaching, therefore Rome’s method is correct.”

    I did not write the quotation you attribute to me, or anything equivalent to it.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course that's not a direct quote. But that's your implication. I've summarized your implication.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is uncharitable and unchristian for you to put a sentence in quotes, say that someone said it, and then in your comments section say "of course thats not a direct quote." when your whole sentence reads like its direct quote. Its really disgusting. That is no way to 'summarize and implication.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There, I've changed it to read, What he does do is to imply, “Protestants don’t all agree on the correct teaching, therefore Rome’s method is correct.”

    Now what problems do you have with the post?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Now what problems do you have with the post?"

    None that i can elaborate on. I pick my battles.

    Later.

    ReplyDelete
  6. None that i can elaborate on.

    Well, I must have the James Dean seal-of-approval then. At least it's not so uncharitable, unchristian, and disgusting that he's going to contest it. Whew, I can rest easy now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi John!

    You wrote,

    “In the real world, as in Bryan Cross’s make-believe world, the Roman Catholic Church does not ‘teach correctly about the Word of God.’ And no amount of claiming ‘interpretive’ mastery of the Scriptures fixes that.”

    Where do you think the Catholic Church fails in this regard?

    In Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pete, try 1 Tim 3:15, just for yucks. This is in Lumen Gentium. It's the phrase "pillar and support for the faith".

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/pillar-and-support-of-truth.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pete, here is my contention: He does not then go on to prove that the Roman Catholic Church does “teach correctly about the Word of God”

    I would like to see, in fact, some Roman Catholic say, "the Roman Catholic interpretation of this verse is correct, and we've done the proper exegesis on it ... here's what it actually says ... and here's why it means what we think it means..."

    Do you know where something like that exists?

    Instead, we are treated to grandiose statements like this one:

    to make conformity to one’s own interpretation a condition for submission is performatively to make oneself one’s own authority, the Protestant’s very act of laying out a list of conditions for reunion with the Catholic Church is not a theologically neutral act. In this act the Protestant intrinsically arrogates to himself an interpretive authority exceeding that of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

    The argument is, "The Catholic Church is right because we have the authority to be right, and we say so".

    But you never see any kind of verse-by-verse exegesis proving it. And when you do get into the verse-by-verse exegesis -- what the text actually says -- as is the case with the 1 Tim 3:15 example, Rome's "authoritative interpretation" doesn't align with what the text actually says -- what the Author is actually saying. It's different.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It [the RCC] declares, I cannot believe in God's word but on the authority of the church. But how am I to believe in the church? The first converts could not. Antiquity, catholicity, succession did not exist. They were called on to believe in Christ alone. There was no church, and all ecclesiastical authority was against Him. The foundation of the first disciples' faith is different on the Romanist system from mine; and, even after Christ was glorified, the faith of the converts could not be founded, and was not founded on the church, but on the testimony of the apostles. Nor could it be with heathens now; for they do not recognize the church. It is said that there is special grace for them. So heathens have special grace which Christians cannot have. And if, as believing in Christ, I seek, not Christianity, but honestly what church is the best one, I am told I must begin by owning the authority of that church. But this is absurd on the face of it; for what I want to know is, has it authority? Is it the true church?
    The greatest stickler for church authority does not pretend the church receives a fresh revelation. He merely says that the church pronounces on truth as having been revealed. But then there can be no development. Till revelation was complete there were further truths unfolded, but it was by revelation. Once that complete, all is closed; and Christianity completes it. The word of God is fulfilled, completed, says Paul to the Colossians. We are to walk in the light, as God is in the light. It was an unction of the Holy One, by which we know all things. "The Spirit," says the apostle, "searcheth all things, even the deep things of God." And then the apostle tells us he spoke by the Holy Spirit in words which He taught. The true light now shines. We have the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost may guard the saints against error, and shew it is error; but the apostles were guided into all truth. Thus John, in a passage quoted, "Let that therefore abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall continue in the Father and in the Son." We have the "glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." So again: "Continue thou in the things that thou hast learned, knowing of whom thou hast learned them." Paul, in going, commends them to God and the word of His grace, as sufficient. Peter writes that they should have, after his decease, these things always in remembrance. As Tertullian justly says, "What is first is the truth."
    The church does not teach; the teacher teaches. The church abides in and professes the truth she has learned. She is, or ought to be, the pillar and ground of the truth; but she does not teach it. The mystery of iniquity began in the apostles' days: the last days were already come. The Truth was there; but men, like Satan, abode not in it. But abiding in it, walking in it, in the truth perfectly revealed in Christ, this was the duty of the saint, even if the professing church would not, and the time should come when they would turn away from the truth: Paul declared they would."

    From: Analysis of Dr. Newman's Apologia pro vita sua. http://www.archive.org/stream/a567237300darbuoft#page/n175

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Pete!

    I'm trying not to take it personally that you don't write me anymore. ;) I do hope you and Rebecca are well.

    I have to jump in here where you wrote, “Where do you think the Catholic Church fails in this regard (i.e. the proper teaching of Scripture)”?

    It does so on a couple of levels:

    1. The RC church has made it a “matter of faith” (de fide), through its infallible definition of the canon, to believe grave theological errors. For example, the Book of Wisdom teaches that God created the world out of pre-existent matter. Roman Catholics, on pain of excommunication, must hold this to be true.


    2. Although the Scripture prohibits the addition or subtraction to or from its contents, the Missal of the RC Church, which is the primary method by which an RC parishioner hears the Scripture, takes the liberty to redact sections that are deemed “theologically difficult” (i.e. that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary was their natural mother.) According to one Catholic scholar, the RC church removed 99.2% of the OT from the pre-Vatican II missal and about 93% in subsequent editions. In other words, in its presentation of the Scripture during worship, the RC church places itself above the Scripture by removing vast portions of it in violation of Scriptural commands.


    3. The RC church violates its own interpretive rules regarding the treatment of Scripture. The Creed of Pope Pius IV requires that no Roman Catholic may interpret the Scriptures “otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” Yet, Vatican I takes only one of the interpretations of Matthew 16 and makes it the basis for the papacy. Ironically, this new belief in the papacy, predicated on this one interpretation, is likewise a de fide pronouncement. So RC's are required both to believe and not believe the Vatican I interpretation of Matthew 16.


    4. Another RC scholar has written of his seminary training that, “We novices and juniors...were not equipped with even the most basic knowledge of the Bible's symbolic systems or its various layers of meaning.” Catholic seminaries apparently failed to teach the Bible.

    So Rome has not, historically, taught the Bible in its seminaries. It has excluded vast portions for use in the mass, it has redacted portions that don't jibe with Catholic theology and has promoted as Scripture, doctrines that are outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy.

    Others can probably provide more info.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A Bryan Cross Make-Believe Fairy Tale Bait-And-Switch Story

    Some people might be cross if they found out.

    (pun intended)

    ReplyDelete
  13. (1 of 2)
    Hey John!

    Here are my thoughts on the blog you linked me to for 1 Timothy 3:15…

    I don’t think that Paul is using “pillar and buttress” in delayed apposition to the way we ought to behave. We want to avoid hypocrisy and we are called to perfection, but, “if,” as Paul asks, “we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!” (Galatians 2:17) To make the moral behavior of Christians into the buttress of truth is exactly what Luther is criticizing in your current blog as irrelevant in his contention with the Catholic Church. Paul is saying that we need to behave well because we are in God’s household, and God’s household—i.e., His visible Church: the net of the Gospel filled with good and bad fish; the mountain filling the earth; endowed with teaching and preaching offices, and sacraments of grace, and a deposit of truth; and in which “great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable” (2 Timothy 2:20)—is the pillar and foundation of the truth (sorry for this cumbersome sentence). How so? We hold out the authentic interpretation of God’s revelation to the world, we offer them salvation in the Truth, Who is Jesus, “so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 3:10). We do not live moral lives in order to buttress the truth; rather, our moral lives are buttressed by the truth. This was Luther’s point in your current article and I think we do well to allow this thought to inform our reading of this verse.

    Two of the commentators you selected said,

    Luke Timothy Johnson: “…the community is the oikos…”

    Knight: “…they are the home built and owned by God…”

    Is this what they are saying of Paul’s use of oikos in 1 Timothy 3:15? If so, I think this is their great misstep that allows them to see this “delayed apposition.” In this verse, the community itself is not the house like it is in 1 Peter 2:5. Rather, here they are en or in the house. See again Paul’s parallel description in 2 Timothy 2:20. The house in these two places is something more than the people themselves, but still in relation to them, as that which contains them and in which they grow. The house of God includes such realities as the truth of the verbal proclamation of the Gospel, the grace of the sacramental proclamation of the Gospel, and the authoritative offices through which this grace and truth flow for the equipping of the saints. All is of God, and all is from the gifting of the Holy Spirit. This grace and truth that the Spirit spreads abroad throughout the Body of Christ is distinct from the members of the Body— just as the sacraments themselves are distinct from the members of the Body, and yet apply to them; and just as the Gospel itself comes not from man and yet is at the same time “Christ in you,” i.e., “Christ in man”—while at the same time it exists precisely in order to both make them and preserve them as members of that Body until they reach the fullness of the stature of Christ (wow, this is another terrible sentence).

    But I give a big “Thank you” to Luke Timothy Johnson for defending the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. (2 of 2)
    You also wrote, “Paul's illustration of the ‘church’ is first that of a ‘household.’ The Vatican usage is wrong.”

    But I invite you to do a word search on Lumen Gentium (the text you were drawing from) for “family,” “house,” etc. For example, this document draws precisely from 1 Timothy 3:15 in Article 18: “this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.”

    Furthermore, in order to identify the “the one Church of Christ” which is “the pillar and mainstay of the truth,” as described in Lumen Gentium, we have to go up above the paragraph you had quoted in your blog. The paragraph you quoted began with “This is the one Church of Christ…” This Church was described in the preceding paragraph of Lumen Gentium in the following terms:

    “Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.”

    This sounds good to me! A community of faith, hope, and love? Let’s join! :)

    With love in Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey Constantine!

    I see you just posted as I was writing that last stuff up. I’ll get back to what you just wrote, maybe tomorrow. Did you see me invite you back to Big Mamma Church over at Beggars All? Don’t waste time. Do it! Do it!

    Love,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey Constantine!

    Beck was on the phone with her sister for so long today that I decided to work on giving you a response. My numbers match your numbers. Here are my thoughts:

    1. The Book of Wisdom states that God’s “all-powerful hand… created the world (Gk.: τὸν κόσμον) out of formless matter (Gk: ἀμόρφου ὕλης)” (11:17). The amorphous/formless matter of Wisdom is most likely referring to the waters of Genesis 1, out of which and through which “the earth was formed” (2 Peter 3:5), and by which the whole world (Gk.: κόσμος) was eventually destroyed (cf. 2 Peter 3:6). But we don’t have to limit Wisdom to speaking of these waters. The body of Adam was likewise created out of a kind of formless matter when God took the dust of the earth and formed it into the body of man. We can look to James 3:5 for an example of υλη (which is what I am saying refers to the waters and other building-block type materials) being translated as “forest” on account of its context. Where did this formless matter that Wisdom speaks of come from? We believe that God created it out of nothing.

    2. That we read from a limited portion of the Scriptures during Mass is not the same thing as removing content from the Bible. I’ve not known of any church reading from all of 1 Chronicles Chapters 1 – 9 and then preaching on it. Can you imagine that sermon series? Yikes!

    3. The Fathers were not unanimous in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, so the Church was free to endorse or reject any of the interpretations previously proposed.

    4. Please name the seminary so I can encourage everyone to avoid it like the plague.

    5. I was ready to keep going but you stopped at 4. Ha ha.

    If you remember, we stopped writing because my tortuous, longwinded emails were giving you migraines. :) Beck and I are doin pretty well, thanks a lot. Except, I want more babies and she doesn’t. It makes it tough. But she’s beautiful and sweet, I love her, and God is more than seeing us through in His amazing kindness.

    I hope you have a blessed weekend!

    In Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Holdon, thanks for your comments. That's a good selection.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Your problem, Pete, is that you look at a text and say, "why can't it mean what Rome says it means?" When really, the text doesn't say what Rome says it says, and you (and Rome) are just engaging in wishful thinking.

    When Paul wrote, he had a definite conception of a household, because that's how churches functioned in that day. The better we can understand Paul's world, the better we can understand what he was really, truly saying.

    And the fact is, he wasn't putting some universal church body in charge of protecting right doctrine; he was commanding them to obey it. By their behavior, they would "support" the truth of the doctrine.

    Rome's behavior over the centuries has done anything BUT support Christ's doctrine. It has in very many instances been the precise opposite of it.

    And as Irenaeus said, if the leaders of the church didn't obey the doctrine, they would bring "the greatest calamity" upon the church.

    Rome has brought tremendous calamity to the church of Christ over the centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Poor Mother Church! It was so much easier when she kept the unwashed masses illiterate! For kicks and giggles sometime check into the studies on literacy rates from about 1500 until 1700 in the countries and regions influenced by the Reformation contra those dominated by Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good morning, John!

    You wrote, “Your problem, Pete, is that you look at a text and say, ‘why can't it mean what Rome says it means?’ When really, the text doesn't say what Rome says it says, and you (and Rome) are just engaging in wishful thinking.”

    In terms of 1 Timothy 3:15, all I’m saying is that “the Church of the living God” is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, and that “how one ought to behave” is not the pillar and foundation of Truth. I’m also saying that the members of the Church are not the full concept of Church in this verse, but are in the Church as being members of something that is larger than themselves. I do not deny that our moral life lends credibility to our truth claims, but I am denying that Paul is calling our moral lives “a pillar and buttress of truth” in this verse.

    The Catholic Church is not intending to use 1 Timothy 3:15 in order to substantiate all that was said in that paragraph of Lumen Gentium. All they’re saying is that Jesus erected His Church “for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth.’ ” In other words, they’ve identified the Church as being that pillar and buttress.

    You also wrote, “And the fact is, he wasn’t putting some universal church body in charge of protecting right doctrine; he was commanding them to obey it. By their behavior, they would ‘support’ the truth of the doctrine.”

    We didn’t say that Paul was putting some universal Church body in charge of protecting right doctrine. But Paul was indeed putting Timothy in charge of protecting right doctrine, and Timothy was a part of the universal Church.

    The Church itself is the pillar and buttress of the truth. The relationship between this previous statement and our moral life is this: since this identity of the Church of being a pillar and buttress of the Truth is so noble, we need to behave well, we need to live up to it, we need to walk in a manner worthy. This fits the grammar and the context. How is it that the Church itself is the pillar and buttress of the truth? Because “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness…” (1 Timothy 3:16f). Do you see how Paul’s line of thought flows into a confession of the content of our faith, which is Jesus, Who is the Truth? The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth because we confess Jesus and hold Him up before the word’s eyes through the proclamation of the Gospel.

    If you still think I’m wrong, please give me some more resources to consider. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t see it yet.

    Finally, you wrote, “Rome’s behavior over the centuries has done anything BUT support Christ's doctrine. It has in very many instances been the precise opposite of it. [...] Rome has brought tremendous calamity to the church of Christ over the centuries.”

    What would you think if I wrote,

    “Rome’s behavior over the centuries has done nothing BUT support Christ's doctrine. It has in very many instances been the precise proponent of it. [...] Rome has brought tremendous blessing to the church of Christ over the centuries.”

    You’d think that I was blinded by love (or demons), right? But the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    John, when you say things like this, and you say them often, what I see is a man who has divorced the Church and is in the bitterness of the divorce. I am sorry that you feel betrayed by the Catholic Church. But we are not what you are seeing through your eyes of bitterness. I pray that God will take away this justified pain and animosity that you feel towards “Rome.”

    Have a blessed weekend!

    With love in Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  21. "But we are not what you are seeing"

    So, you admit there is a lot wrong with what we're seeing in the RCC. I appreciate that.

    I don't see the RCC is the assembly of the living God. Because there I would certainly expect an appropriate conduct as the Apostle says:

    "but if I delay, in order that thou mayest know how one ought to conduct oneself in God's house, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth. And confessedly the mystery of piety is great. God has been manifested in flesh, has been justified in the Spirit, has appeared to angels, has been preached among the nations, has been believed on in the world, has been received up in glory. But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatise from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons speaking lies in hypocrisy, cauterised as to their own conscience, forbidding to marry, bidding to abstain from meats, which God has created for receiving with thanksgiving for them who are faithful and know the truth."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Holden! Holter here…

    Are you being facetious when you say, “So, you admit there is a lot wrong with what we're seeing in the RCC”? If not, what I meant was that John’s bitterness was clouding his vision.

    You said that you “don't see the RCC is the assembly of the living God. Because there I would certainly expect an appropriate conduct as the Apostle says.” But how many of our thousands of bishops and hundreds of thousands of priests do you know? I barely know any of them. But I’ve met Father Peter Ryan at Mt. St. Mary’s; my pastors, Father Poston and Father Nirappel; one of our visiting priests, Reverend Monsignor Bastress; the Pastor of St. Peter’s in Liberty town (nearby), Father Worley, and the priest who came before him, Monsignor John Dietzenbach; and Father Mark, Father Pacwa, and Father Robert Fox with EWTN. I’ve corresponded with Father Harrison and Monsignor McCarthy of the Roman Theological Forum. I don’t know any of them well, some of them barely at all. But they’ve all struck me as God-fearing men trying to be faithful to our Lord. One of our auxiliary bishops, Bishop Rozanski, prayed over my wife when she came into the Church last year and she has had a fondness for him since then, and since hearing him preach.

    You would have to name more than 3,000 bishops and priests currently serving in the Catholic Church in order to show that we were doing any worse than Jesus did in getting 11 good ones out of the 12 He personally selected. And if Jesus only got 11 out of His 12, how well should we really be doing? I hope you would expect worse from us. :)

    This is exactly the Donatist complaint against Augustine. And Augustine’s response was exactly what I’m saying today: you don’t even know the people you’re rejecting communion with. How can you reject communion with the whole world of Catholics that you don’t know on the basis of the moral lives of some scandalous priests living in this or that place? I don’t know you, but I’d love to worship with you in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, side by side, condemning the evils of evil priests, and “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). If the Catholic Church teaches something in the Catechism that you think is bad, please let me know if you’d like to see if I might have something helpful to say. Perhaps God will find a way to bless you through me, a big fat nobody.

    I hope you enjoy your weekend basking in the incomparable blessing of having placed your trust in Jesus Christ our Savior.

    Love,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Pete,

    How about the "forbidding to marry" Pete? Are your 3000+ clergy allowed to marry?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yo Pete!

    Good to hear from you, man! I didn't see the invite at BA but not necessary. I was "chosen in Him, before the foundation of the earth" (Eph. 1:4). So I'm right where God wants me!

    It's late so I won't give you a fully orbed response. Just a coupla observations:

    You wrote, "The amorphous/formless matter of Wisdom is most likely referring to the waters of Genesis 1"

    I answer: Is that an official Magisterial interpretation or are we at the whim of your "private interpretation"?

    PH: The body of Adam was likewise created out of a kind of formless matter ...

    C: True enough. But that formless matter was not created out of formless matter. It was created, ex nihilo to use the funny theology word. That's really the point. What happened at the point of creation, not thereafter.

    My friend, PH: That we read from a limited portion of the Scriptures during Mass is not the same thing as removing content from the Bible.

    C, in reply: It is, if that is the only exposure that Catholics get to the Bible. And you and I both know, that until VERY recently, Catholics didn't read the Bible. I know - I was one. :)

    My friend, once more: The Fathers were not unanimous in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, so the Church was free to endorse or reject any of the interpretations previously proposed.

    C: Nope, that is backward. Here's what Pius IV said: " Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." If you can pick any interpretation, that is "otherwise" to the unanimous consent. If that was so, Pius would not have needed to write any prohibition against any interpretation, which is his clear meaning here.

    The seminary referred to was a Jesuit seminary, St. Stanislaus in Florissant, MO. I'm pretty sure that it would have been no different than any other Jesuit seminary, at least.

    I'm praying that you will come out of that works-based group you are in and experience the power of God's saving grace.

    Best to your lovely bride....and even you! ;)

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Holdon!

    Sorry I misspelled your name last time.

    We think that Paul is concerned with the reason why these people forbid marriage, and we think that their rationale for this forbiddance is being countered by Paul in what he continues to say about why we are not to abstain from foods: God’s material creation is good (cf. 1 Timothy 4:4-5). We believe that Paul is here arguing against proto-gnostic sects and prophesying against the doctrines of such groups as the Manichaeans who say that the material creation is not good. The Manichaeans viewed intercourse and having babies as an inherent evil because the produced offspring would trap a piece of the divine in the new human. What is the primary purpose of marriage? “Godly offspring” (Malachi 2:15). What did the Manichaeans seek to forbid? Offspring. This is the type of forbidding of marriage that Paul is specifically combating.

    Choosing celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is desired for all men by Paul and is a lifelong vow made by Christians as indicated by Jesus’ calling them “eunuchs.” Choosing the celibate life in the priesthood is a high calling; but it is a calling freely chosen. If you feel called to the priesthood and to marriage, God may be calling you to one of the Eastern Rites, or He may still be asking you to come to the Latin Rite and to respectfully seek for a relaxation of this discipline from within. Or maybe you’ll come in and end up thinking that this is a good thing after all. This is a house rule. This is not a doctrine of faith and morals. We’re family! :) What the Church is doing here is something akin to what the father of the Rechabites did in binding his children to a family rule that he created to help build them up in a special devotion to God. Please note that the Rechabites were forbidden to drink wine; and yet God blessed them for obeying their father in this regard. If a priest feels unable to keep his vow, the Church will release him. Father Francis from EWTN is a recent example.

    For a recent story on married priests within the Melkite Catholic Church here in America, you can see this article: http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/melkite-catholic-church-to-ordain-married-men-to-priesthood-in-usa/

    Well, those are my thoughts on it anyway. I hope it was helpful.

    In Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  26. Constantine!

    Thanks for the seminary to avoid.

    I am not in any works-based group. Are you crazy? I’m in the Catholic Church! We believe in salvation through faith, hope, and love by the grace of God. The more I learn the Scriptures from God’s Church, the more amazed I am by His providential care over her. It really is fun being Catholic.

    Your family didn’t read the Bible and you say you was a Catholic? Maybe you was a bad Catholic! Ha ha. I hear the stereotypes, but I really don’t know. My mom was never one to read the Bible, but my Grammy had a nice big Bible with a wooden cover. Pretty neat. I can’t say I’m sure that Grammy read it, but at least she had one available if she wanted to.

    As far as infallible interpretations go, Catholics are simply not free to interpret Wisdom 11:17 to mean that God did not create ex nihilo. My interpretation, which was hopefully more than a whim, was my attempt to follow the Church’s desire expressed in Dei Verbum:

    “[S]ince Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith” (Article 12).

    As to unanimous consent, I understand Pius to mean that where we find the Fathers unanimously interpreting a verse of Scripture in a particular way, then we need to follow them in this interpretation. We cannot contradict them. As far as I know, the Magisterium has not identified any verses where this would apply except to say that they are few; but John 3:5 seems to be such an example in that the Fathers are unanimous in identifying “born of water and the Spirit” with our rebirth through water baptism.

    Thanks for your best. And thanks for the interaction! Why was it late? Are you traveling in Europe today?

    With love in Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  27. Greetings John, fwiw, I've been reading your posts for the past few years (TB, BeggAll, etc.) and quite frankly, I read your "quote of Bryan" simply as a "summary of the implications of Bryans belief". It flows from the consistentcy of the tone of this post and most of your postings over the years. I wouldn't make too much of nitpicky-ness the internet demands. I truly believe Bryan knew it wasn't a direct quote of his, but a simple summary of your characterization of it - one that he doesn't want to be associated with. Perhaps next time instead of quotes, a bold or underline may do the job. Keep up the great work, I especially enjoy reading your posts of 1C Christianity. Thanks for your time spent on these matters, and may the Lord bring you and your family comfort and joy during this difficult season of you life.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "This is a house rule."

    Well the house rule from Paul is that people contrary to the piety would teach not to marry.

    That's exactly what the RCC does per your own testimony here.

    Sorry but RCC fails the test.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Discipled, I know that if they can find one thing wrong, they feel that absolves them from the need to respond to any of the substance of the post. I understand the tactic.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Good morning, Holdon!

    You wrote, “Well the house rule from Paul is that people contrary to the piety would teach not to marry.

    “That's exactly what the RCC does per your own testimony here.

    “Sorry but RCC fails the test.”

    Let me know if this helps:

    “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times the Rechabites will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of their lying father Jonadab whose conscience is seared, who requires abstinence from wine that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

    In Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  31. "“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times the Rechabites will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of their lying father Jonadab whose conscience is seared, who requires abstinence from wine that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

    I don't see any connection at all between your interpretation of the Rechabites and the instructions for the house of the living God by Paul. See 1 Tim 3:3, 8; 6:23.

    Strange reasoning.

    You have

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Holdon!

    The connection I am trying to establish is this: Your assertion amounts to saying that any prohibition of marriage for any reason is demonic. But this demonic prohibition of marriage is given within the context of a similar prohibition on foods. If the prohibition is without qualification, and the reason behind the forbiddance is not of concern in determining whether it is of demons or of God but all is demonic, then Jonadab’s prohibition of wine for all of his descendants was demonic. But God approved of the obedience of the Rechabites and blessed them for it even though they had to disobey God’s very own prophet in order to maintain their abstention from the forbidden food. So we know that the reason why we do what we do in these cases is what matters to God, and not the act in and of itself. I am asking you to apply a similar logic to our celibate priesthood.

    What we are trying to say is that God is not concerned with the outward act of refraining from marriage in and of itself, but with the reason why we would do so. It is just the same as if we never eat meat. If we do this for the sake of weaker brethren, then God is pleased. If we do it because we view the material creation as something evil, then we have departed from the faith and the demons are pleased. Have our priests “departed from the faith,” as Paul says these people have done, by allowing our bishops to require of them that they freely choose celibacy for the sake of the kingdom in order to be ordained and to celebrate the sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconciliation? If you’d like to see some of the reasons why our Latin Rite priests refrain from marriage, here is an introduction you might want to consider: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html.

    I think you may have given me the wrong verses in your last comment.

    Have a blessed Lord’s Day, Holdon!

    With love in Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  34. " Have our priests “departed from the faith,” as Paul says these people have done, by allowing our bishops to require of them that they freely choose celibacy"

    You're confused which shows the demonic powers behind this thing. If you follow the RCC teachings, you're not following Paul's teachings. And if any teach "forbidding to marry" teachings (like the RCC does per your admitting), then it proves the RCC is vested with demonic powers.

    And "require to choose freely" is of course contradictory nonsense on the face of it, because the requirement is that the priest (or other official) can't be priest if married.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Paul said that “some will depart from the faith […] through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage” (1 Timothy 4:2-3). Based on your interpretation of Paul, our priests have departed from the faith by submitting to the prohibition of marriage enforced by our lying bishops. How have our priests departed from the faith by making a decision to make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom and to follow after Paul’s desire that all men be celibate in order to have a focused anxiety “about the things of the LORD”?

    The point I was trying to make in my last post was that no one is forced to be a priest. And I’ll add here for illustration that no one is forced to marry. When you freely choose to marry, you bind yourself to fidelity to your spouse. Likewise, when you freely choose to become a priest in the Latin Rite, you bind yourself to celibacy.

    Did you give any thought to the link I provided? Here are some thoughts from Augustine. They help us to see that we need to look for the reason why:

    “So, again, if your exhortations to virginity resembled the teaching of the apostle, ‘He who giveth in marriage doeth well, and he who giveth not in marriage doeth better’; if you taught that marriage is good, and virginity better, as the Church teaches which is truly Christ’s Church, you would not have been described in the Spirit’s prediction as forbidding to marry. What a man forbids he makes evil; but a good thing may be placed second to a better thing without being forbidden. Moreover, the only honorable kind of marriage, or marriage entered into for its proper and legitimate purpose, is precisely that you hate most. So, though you may not forbid sexual intercourse, you forbid marriage; for the peculiarity of marriage is, that it is not merely for the gratification of passion, but, as is written in the contract, for the procreation of children” (Against Faustus, Bk. 30, 6).

    “For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers—that is, those in the second grade among you—are allowed to have wives. After you have said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit” (On the Morals of the Manichaeans, Ch. 18:65).

    With love in Christ,
    Pete

    ReplyDelete