Philip and I corresponded privately behind the scenes, but I wanted to respond here to some of his comments in the thread below:
1. I certainly did not (and do not) mean to be disingenuous. I just wanted to have a conversation. I am an affable and curious and talkative guy. Also, my name really is Philip Jude, so you don't need to put it in scare quotes. Heck, you even know my last name, having traced me back to Catholic Lane.
Hi Philip, I know we have corresponded privately, but I wanted to respond publicly to some of your comments here. I am sorry that you feel uncomfortable. I apologize, if you did not intend to be disingenuous, but after our private correspondence, and reading some of your other works, I’m still inclined to think you’re holding something back. (And again, I respect your privacy and anonymity, but I’m inclined to think you’re not being straight, and I’ll say why below).
2. I am not a professional by any means, just a practicing Catholic who loves the Bible and is fascinated by philosophy and theology. The last class I took on theology was in tenth grade. I don't even have a college degree! (For many years I struggled with alcoholism and substance abuse, which complicated the whole formal education thing.) Nope, I am just a theology geek with a big appetite for books. Simple as that.
Even so, this level of humility does nothing to explain some of the things you have written which are very articulate and well-thought-out pieces. Maybe not a “formal education”, but you are not just “a theology geek with a big appetite for books”. You have trained and knowledgeable teachers, and not only a “big appetite” for books, but access to them, and the time to study them. I’m thinking maybe you are affiliated with a religious order somewhere, or at least, you have close access to them, but that’s just a surmise.
4. Yes, I have been editing for Catholic Lane for several months. It is a part-time, unpaid position that I secured through a friend. It's my small way of giving back to the Church.
Such things take time and knowledge, and you have these, and you have not acquired them in a haphazard way, through light and curious reading.
The Bible is not enough, as it clearly states! That is an Islamic claim unknown to Christians prior to the Reformation. Even then, it was exclusive to the radicals, utterly rejected by the likes of Calvin and Luther.
You will have to show me where the Bible states that it is not sufficient. You should qualify that, as “sufficient for its own intended purposes”. As it is, your statement is a bit of a straw man. Even the WCF qualifies the “naked Bible” as you posit.
Anyway, the adjective "Roman" (which you insist upon) is ultimately misleading. It is rather the Church Universal. That the Chair of Peter happened to end up in Rome is an accident of history. (And, as I've remarked before, I am indeed wary of certain papal claims.)
On the contrary, Rome is precisely the problem. It is the wholesale importation of Roman culture that is among the earliest corruptions of the Apostolic message, and I believe that with the help of some of the modern New Testament scholarship, and other scholarship dealing with the early church, this will become more and more evident over time.
Rome “claims” universality, and I intend to comment, for example, on Ratzinger’s article about the very nature of “Roman” “Catholic”. And as far as Peter having ended up in Rome as “an accident of history”, Ratzinger disagrees with you. In his “Called to Communion”, he goes to great lengths to prove that “Rome was the original pre-eminent authority”, the very purpose of the progression in Acts. But I’m sure you are more correct than he is in this question.
Although, it is likely that Peter, a traveling missionary to the Jews, never had a “chair”. The concept of “a chair” is a later superimposition on what the Apostles actually taught and did.
You separate Christ and His Church, but this is impossible. Communion with Christ is communion with His Body (the Church), and vice versa.
No, I do not “separate Christ and His Church”. I separate Rome from “Christ and his church”. Roman, pagan accretions. Yes, every Christian, as I said above, may boast of “union with Christ”. But this is a direct, personal relationship. No Roman hierarchy is required.
Given this great and wonderful mystery, the Christian is bound to discern the true Church among the chaos of competing sects. From my (admittedly amateur) study of history and Scripture, I believe this to be the Catholic Church.
No, turn to Christ and you be a member of the church. “Repent and be baptized.” “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. And you will be part of the universal body of Christ. No Roman hierarchy is required.
You insist on using the semi-pejorative term "Roman," but this is misleading: there are Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Syro-Malabar Catholics, Malankarese Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Ethiopian Catholics, Syriac Catholics, and so on. Some of these rites differ significantly from Rome, undercutting the notion that communion with the papacy is truly a state of abject servility.
It is not the “rites” that are foundational. It is “abject servility to the papacy” that makes them part of the Roman network of things. There is one thing that unites all these “rites”. As an Opus Dei friend put it to me, “the pope is in charge”.
As for the hierarchy: Sure, all churches have hierarchies. Anyway, hierarchy was an aspect of the Church from the start, as evidenced by Acts. The episcopal structure is revealed by Scripture and confirmed by the earliest fathers.
Yes, and here is the hierarchy: “he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ”. Not popes and bishops and sees and chairs and endless successions based merely on “office”. In the “earliest fathers”, you should note that even Ignatius did not hold to “apostolic succession” as Rome defines it.
As I mentioned in our emails, Francis Sullivan’s study, “Apostles to Bishops” concludes, “while most Catholic scholars agree that the episcopate is the fruit of the post-New Testament development, they maintain that this development was so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that it must be recognized as corresponding to God’s plan for the structure of his Church”.
I’ll agree with him that it was a “post-New Testament development”, but it is evident (as further study is showing) that this is not only not “structural” in any way, but it was rightly rejected by the Reformers, when this system, which was beneficial in the 2nd century but had become totally corrupted by the 14th century.
Let me reiterate that I do harbor doubts regarding certain aspects of Catholicism (mainly the papacy).
Then you are on a good path, and in good company. Follow up on this. John Meier and others have said that the papacy “cannot give a credible historical account of its own origins”.
There's really no point in getting into a back and forth about my personal life. I'll only say, as I've said before, that I have no formal training whatsoever, no affiliation with any religious order or ministry or fellowship. I was tutored by an older man and an older woman, both of them lay and both of them very pious and learned. I owe everything to them.
ReplyDelete*** It is the wholesale importation of Roman culture that is among the earliest corruptions of the Apostolic message ***
I don't disagree that Roman culture made its way into Catholic culture, just like American culture has made its way into modern evangelicalism. Such influences are inevitable. The Church does not exist in a vacuum.
Anyway, what does it really matter? Such cultural trappings are superficial.
Was any important Catholic dogma appropriated from Greco-Roman paganism? If you cite, for instance, the intercession of saints, you'll need to explain the existence of such practices in the oriental churches, which were well outside Roman influence.
*** Rome “claims” universality, and I intend to comment, for example, on Ratzinger’s article about the very nature of “Roman” “Catholic”. And as far as Peter having ended up in Rome as “an accident of history”, Ratzinger disagrees with you. In his “Called to Communion”, he goes to great lengths to prove that “Rome was the original pre-eminent authority”, the very purpose of the progression in Acts. But I’m sure you are more correct than he is in this question." ***
Maybe I am. It is totally licit for us to part ways on many subjects.
*** No, turn to Christ and you be a member of the church. “Repent and be baptized.” “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. ***
Indeed. But what does it mean to "repent"? What is "baptism"? How exactly does one "believe on the Lord"? These propositions are not nearly as simple as you make them seem. There is real disagreement among Christians. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be dozens of Protestant sects. Who's to say that really constitutes baptism, repentance, belief, salvation, and so on?
*** And you will be part of the universal body of Christ. No Roman hierarchy is required. ***
You keep going back to this business of the hierarchy. It baffles me. I know Americans have a knee jerk aversion to bureaucracy, but . . . come on!
Let's be clear: The Roman hierarchy isn't necessary for communion with Christ.
If the Roman hierarchy evaporated tomorrow, the Catholic Church would continue to exist in all its fullness.
The Roman hierarchy is not the same thing as the Seat of Peter. It is merely a necessary evil, an inevitable reality in an organization responsible for one billion souls. (It is crucial to keep in mind the enormous size and scope of the Church. This is a Body that claims one out of every six people on earth, and thrives on every continent. God Himself could not prevent a monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances!)
*** It is not the “rites” that are foundational. It is “abject servility to the papacy” that makes them part of the Roman network of things." ***
That's simply not true. The various rites have significant autonomy, both liturgical and doctrinal. Some even allow married priests and pray the Creed sans filioque, two old Roman bugaboos.
Abject servility may have once been the case. We've had some nasty popes. But the Reformation was punishment from God for the wickedness of the Church. No doubt about it.
It forced us, albeit slowly, to reconsider our ways. It especially forced the papacy to reevaluate its modus operandi.
Now look: One of the greatest men of the twentieth century -- Blessed John Paul II -- sat in the Chair of Peter. That is the caliber of the modern papacy.
ReplyDelete*** There is one thing that unites all these “rites”. As an Opus Dei friend put it to me, “the pope is in charge”. " ***
If, for some unimaginable reason, the papacy was permanently and utterly erased, I believe the Church would remain united. Why? Because of our love of the Eucharist. Because of our respect for the communion of saints. Because of our reverence for the Virgin Mary. Because of our fondness for liturgy. Because of our recognition of and dependence upon the sacred mysteries. Because of the spiritual discipline taught by generations of holy men and women. Because of the fertile Catholic imagination and intellect.
There is so much more to Catholicism than the papacy!
*** Ignatius did not hold to “apostolic succession” as Rome defines it. ***
Ignatius is silent on the subject. Irenaeus, on the other hand, is quite clear:
"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth" (Against Heresies, 3:3:1).
I put great trust in a man like Irenaeus, a martyr who was taught by Polycarp, another martyr, who learned from the Apostles themselves.
***Then you are on a good path, and in good company. Follow up on this. John Meier and others have said that the papacy “cannot give a credible historical account of its own origins”. ***
Thank you. I will read these resources. I appreciate your help with finding these.
God bless, John!
It is totally licit for us to part ways on many subjects.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know when it is licit to disagree with the Pope and when it is not?
what does it mean to "repent"? What is "baptism"?
Repent is "metanoia" in the Greek and signifies turning away. From sin and the old man, specifically.
Baptism is what an adult does upon repenting and putting his faith in Christ, and carries all sorts of other meaning.
I don't get it; what's so hard about these? I'm sure you've read the NT. Why didn't you look there to answer your question?
There is real disagreement among Christians.
What is the connection between this statement and the previous one? So what? Do you presume that some people don't get things wrong, or that disagreement necessarily leads to unclarity of explanation? If it does, what of the many internal divisions within RCC?
Who's to say that really constitutes baptism, repentance, belief, salvation, and so on?
The Holy Spirit, in the Bible.
The Roman hierarchy isn't necessary for communion with Christ.
That's not what Cyprian and Boniface said.
These propositions are not nearly as simple as you make them seem. There is real disagreement among Christians. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be dozens of non-Protestant sects. Who's to say that really constitutes submission to the Magisterium?
The Roman hierarchy...is merely a necessary evil
Wow, the only thing I'd change about that is to remove the "necessary". The rest is greatly appreciated.
God Himself could not prevent a monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances!
Why do you not have a problem with a "monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances" but do have a problem with some levels of disagreement among believers, given the circumstances?
If...the papacy was permanently and utterly erased, I believe the Church would remain united.
Could you please define "united"? Since you lack monolithic beliefs on many important doctrines, as you yourself have even illustrated here, what real meaning does that word have?
I put great trust in a man like Irenaeus
ReplyDeleteYOu mean you put great trust in what you think Irenaeus wrote and meant throughout his life. That's not the same thing.
You don't know that what Irenaeus said is what the church of his time believed.
You don't know how what Irenaeus wrote was received by other churches. Any mere claims to "we believe thus" are not necessarily true. Not without proof, and more proof than Irenaeus' say-so.
You don't know whether Irenaeus was held in the highest respect by his contemporaries. Maybe you're reading the Charles Stanley of their time - not really all that bad, but quite shallow compared to others, most of the time.
You don't know whether you have all Irenaeus' writings, or even what % his today-extant writings form of the total things he wrote over his lifetime. Thus you don't know if he ever took it all, or part of it, back.
You don't know whether what Irenaeus said in public or in private teachings actually comports with the extant writings you have.
You don't take everything that is extant from Irenaeus and believe it. You believe only the parts that the modern Roman Catholic Church has dogmatised and accepted for modern times. Why call him a "Church Father" at all? Seems to me a traditional nomenclature that fails to take the above into consideration, fails to think through the divide between what he believed and what modern Rome believes, and has served as a useful tool for you, so you decided to keep it. And it is useful - citing "Fathers" sounds so imperial, so high-fallootin', so mysteriously powerful, that often it causes a brain block within the mind of the Sola Scripturist. I myself have experienced this many times.
Hope you don't mind my input.
Peace,
Rhology
*** How do you know when it is licit to disagree with the Pope and when it is not? ***
ReplyDeleteFirst, he was not the Pope when he wrote "Called to Communion"
Second, the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra.
Third, Ratzinger is a wise and benevolent man. Having read most of his books, he is obviously open to numerous points of views on such issues.
*** Repent is "metanoia" in the Greek and signifies turning away. From sin and the old man, specifically.
Baptism is what an adult does upon repenting and putting his faith in Christ, and carries all sorts of other meaning.
I don't get it; what's so hard about these? I'm sure you've read the NT. Why didn't you look there to answer your question? ***
The New Testament is not a theological handbook. It was clearly not intended to be an exhaustive explanation of doctrine and dogma.
The definitions you provided are still open to many questions.
For instance, if the Bible is so clear on the matter of baptism, why can't Protestants settle on a single description of the sacrament?
*** The Holy Spirit, in the Bible. ***
Who possesses the Holy Spirit? Who puts forth the correct exegesis of the Bible?
Get a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Lutheran, a Calvinist, and a Baptist in the same room and ask them about the Eucharist. You are going to get five different explanations.
*** Why do you not have a problem with a "monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances" but do have a problem with some levels of disagreement among believers, given the circumstances? ***
Well, I was being somewhat hyperbolic regarding the bureaucracy. Anyway, bureaucracy is one thing; disagreement -- often intense and stark disagreement -- is quite another. They're two entirely different problems.
*** Could you please define "united"? Since you lack monolithic beliefs on many important doctrines, as you yourself have even illustrated here, what real meaning does that word have?***
We don't lack unity on the important questions. Whether or not the papacy was meant to be in Rome or whether it was an accident of history is incidental.
I do appreciate your input and the time you took to address my points! God bless.
he was not the Pope when he wrote "Called to Communion"
ReplyDeleteDoes becoming Pope somehow supernaturally grant that one's arguments become better?
the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra.
How do you know? How do you know you haven't mistaken what "the Church" allows?
How do you know that the resource(s) you read that expressed that idea to you were not actually outside the pale of acceptable Roman orthodoxy?
The New Testament is not a theological handbook. It was clearly not intended to be an exhaustive explanation of doctrine and dogma.
And yet it pretty expressly lays out those topics. It's really not that hard.
The definitions you provided are still open to many questions.
So is the code of Canon Law, and it's many 1000s of pages. I don't see what that has to do with anything.
For instance, if the Bible is so clear on the matter of baptism, why can't Protestants settle on a single description of the sacrament?
1) B/c some people get it wrong. We just went over this.
2) If the Roman Magisterium is so clear on the matter of abortion, why can't RCs settle on a single position on it?
3) You were just a second ago telling me that the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra. Why are you acting differently toward my position? Why can't you be consistent?
Get a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Lutheran, a Calvinist, and a Baptist in the same room and ask them about the Eucharist.
True (except that there are Calvinist Baptists. I'm one.)
The Baptist one is correct.
You were just a second ago telling me that the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra. Why are you acting differently toward my position? Why can't you be consistent?
bureaucracy is one thing; disagreement -- often intense and stark disagreement -- is quite another. They're two entirely different problems.
Given that the NT expects disagreement (1 Cor 11:17-19) but knows nothing of a huge church bureaucracy, why wouldn't one be far more concerned about the latter?
We don't lack unity on the important questions
Who decides which questions are important?
Peace,
Rhology
*** Does becoming Pope somehow supernaturally grant that one's arguments become better? ***
ReplyDeleteOnly when the Holy Spirit chooses to speak through him.
***How do you know?***
Because honest debate has existed among Catholic scholars and theologians from the very start, genuine debate that nonetheless remained within the boundaries of orthodoxy.
***How do you know you haven't mistaken what "the Church" allows?
How do you know that the resource(s) you read that expressed that idea to you were not actually outside the pale of acceptable Roman orthodoxy?* ***
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
**And yet it pretty expressly lays out those topics. It's really not that hard.***
Obviously not clear enough, or there would be no divisions among any Christians anywhere.
*** 1) B/c some people get it wrong. We just went over this. ***
But who is wrong and who is right? And how do I know?
***If the Roman Magisterium is so clear on the matter of abortion, why can't RCs settle on a single position on it? ***
The Magisterium is crystal clear. Some Catholics simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching. This speaks to the weakness and corruption of the human heart.
***You were just a second ago telling me that the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra. Why are you acting differently toward my position? Why can't you be consistent? ***
Because matters like Baptism and Eucharist ARE "de fide." They are of the utmost importance (unlike whether or not God intended the Chair of Peter to end up in Rome). On such issues, the Church has established dogma, whereas Protestants cannot get on the same page whatsoever. If I was to leave the Church, I would have no idea whether to become a Baptist or an Anglican, a Lutheran or a Methodist.
***Who decides which questions are important? ***
Scripture and Tradition, as read and interpreted by the Church Universal across space and time.
This discussion is difficult because we have such intensely different paradigms. We both interpret the data by our presuppositions. In order to have a productive conversation, we'll have to discover these presuppositions and deal with them.
Unfortunately, that is very difficult.
Only when the Holy Spirit chooses to speak through him.
ReplyDeleteHow can you distinguish between when the HS is and isn't speaking thru him?
Because honest debate has existed among Catholic scholars and theologians from the very start, genuine debate that nonetheless remained within the boundaries of orthodoxy.
Debate doesn't exist w/o controversy and disagreement, but you've been trying to criticise Prot-ism for having controversy and disagreement. I don't understand what you've been getting at.
***How do you know you haven't mistaken what "the Church" allows?
How do you know that the resource(s) you read that expressed that idea to you were not actually outside the pale of acceptable Roman orthodoxy?* ***
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
That will be my answer from now on whenever you ask me about disagreements between Prots about what the Bible teaches.
Until you provide a real answer, I figure yours is good enough for me.
**And yet it pretty expressly lays out those topics. It's really not that hard.***
Obviously not clear enough, or there would be no divisions among any Christians anywhere.
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
The Magisterium is crystal clear. Some Catholics simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching. T
...and yet some RCs don't agree. Right?
Now, take that same reasoning, apply it to the Bible's teaching on Eucharist/baptism/repentance, and voilà! Your criticisms of Prot-ism are now neutered.
On such issues, the Church has established dogma, whereas Protestants cannot get on the same page whatsoever.
The Bible is crystal clear on these issues. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching.
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
***Who decides which questions are important? ***
Scripture and Tradition, as read and interpreted by the Church Universal across space and time.
Those aren't "who"s; they're "what"s. Please answer the question.
This discussion is difficult because we have such intensely different paradigms
Your double standards don't help.
Let me be more specific:
ReplyDeleteWe have the issue of authority:
Without a court of final appeal, how do Protestants settle disputes? Why would God allow the potential for such ambiguity in His Church?
We have the issue of unity:
The first Reformers lamented the divisions among those who rejected Rome. This problem persists today. If I leave the Church, where do I go? Why does the local Baptist church have greater legitimacy than the local Anglican church? If they are equally legitimate, why do denominations exist at all? Why not just stay in Rome?
We have the issue of the scope and scale of disagreement:
Catholics have many opinions on many things, but the major issues (those relevant to salvation) are set in stone by twenty centuries of consistent teaching. (Now, some pewsitters disagree or don't care, but the dogma is established, leaving just two options: heresy or orthodoxy.) On the other hand, Protestants rage over matters big and small, issues irrelevant and relevant to salvation. And these fights are not just between denominations, but within them! And, going back to the issue of authority, there is simply no genuine way of settling disputes except to beat one another over the head with the Bible.
***The Bible is crystal clear on these issues. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching.
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.***
You simply cannot claim that the Bible is crystal clear. It contradicts reality.
As I see it, you're just functioning as your own Magisterium.
What you're really saying is this: "My reading of the Bible is crystal clear. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching."
If I need to choose between the Magisterium of Rhology and the ancient and venerable Magisterium of Rome, which is built on the blood of martyrs and the wisdom of the fathers, I choose the latter.
That said, you have made some fair points. I am not a trained apologist for the Church. I realize that I have made some missteps in this debate, a few of which I am not sure how to avoid. I appreciate your careful analysis of my points. I will have to meditate upon and pray over them further.
Thank you, Rhology. God bless!
"Without a court of final appeal, how do Protestants settle disputes?"
ReplyDeleteThis is a "feature" of Catholicism that lacks any form of practical utility.
How would I as a practicing Catholic have access to this alleged "court of final appeal"? Would I file a challenge to the Vatican and have them put me on the docket?
Where's the verdict on the dispute between Catholics who favor a literal interpretation of the Creation account versus those who favor a non-literal interpretation? Where was the Magesterium during the Galileo controversy?
Hi Phillip,
ReplyDeleteWithout a court of final appeal, how do Protestants settle disputes?
We do. In terms of truth, it's the Bible.
In terms of authority, it's the Bible and the local church. Interestingly, that's what Jesus told us to do and how He told us to do it in Matthew 18.
Why would God allow the potential for such ambiguity in His Church?
Maybe ask Him, but not before reading and meditating on 1 Cor 11:17-19, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8, and the fact that you've admitted here that there exists plenty of ambiguity within the Roman communion.
So I don't know what you're getting at.
If I leave the Church, where do I go?
You're more than welcome at my Baptist church.
Why does the local Baptist church have greater legitimacy than the local Anglican church?
You're asking one question and implying another, so I'll answer both.
First, the Baptist church has more b/c its teaching is more in agreement with the Scripture.
Second, to say the Baptist church has more is not at all to say that it solely has legitimacy and the Anglican ch doesn't have any. If the local Anglican ch gets it mostly right and gets a few small matters wrong, it's acceptable. It's not all or nothing.
If they are equally legitimate, why do denominations exist at all?
There are many answers to this, and I'm sure you could do some reading in history to find out.
As far as why I persist in my denomination and don't decry their continued existence, tell me what's wrong with them first. Don't appeal to some ambiguous abstract "disunity"; tell me concretely what the problem is.
I am credobaptist. My brother John Bugay is pædobaptist. I think he's wrong in that view, but that's as far as I'm concerned a tertiary doctrine. I don't want to baptise my kids and so I am Baptist, but I wouldn't have any problem worshiping at his local ch if there weren't a decent credobap local ch that were accessible to me. We have unity in the principal things, and that's what matters.
Catholics have many opinions on many things, but the major issues (those relevant to salvation) are set in stone by twenty centuries of consistent teaching.
1) Sola Scripturists have many opinions on many things, but the major issues (those relevant to salvation) are set in stone by twenty centuries of consistent teaching.
2) The claim to "twenty centuries of consistent teaching" is only possible to make when you grossly cherry-pick teachings NOW, identify the ones you chose as "these are our Sacred Tradition, and those other parts aren't" NOW, and then look back and say "See? Consistent!"
That's hardly impressive. Anyone can cherry-pick.
Far better to choose a view like Sola Scripura wherein we recognise that the church throughout time has been variable, unstable at times, and full of disagreements. All things are to be judged by Scripture. Simple.
On the other hand, Protestants rage over matters big and small, issues irrelevant and relevant to salvation
ReplyDeleteSo do Roman Catholics.
The ones that you disagree sufficiently with you'll simply write out of the Roman communion, but you don't have any authority to do that; only the Magisterium does, and the Mag doesn't do a whole lot of excommunicating and defining some really important doctrines infallibly.
So don't act like you're any better off. You're not.
And these fights are not just between denominations, but within them!
And these fights are not just between RCC and EOxy, but within Rome!
And, going back to the issue of authority, there is simply no genuine way of settling disputes except to beat one another over the head with the Bible.
And, going back to the issue of authority, there is simply no genuine way of settling disputes except to beat one another over the head with arcane Magisterial documents that often contradict each other.
Better to argue about the meaning of an infallible Scripture than about the fallible "clarifications" of evil men.
You simply cannot claim that the Bible is crystal clear. It contradicts reality.
You simply cannot claim that the Magisterium is crystal clear. It contradicts reality.
See how easy the naked assertion game is? Why don't you give us an argument and show your true colors a little more clearly? Namely, it's clear you're not a big fan of the Bible. You love the RCC more than God's Word. Typical, really, and typically sad.
As I see it, you're just functioning as your own Magisterium.
So are you; you have to interpret Magisterial pronouncements.
Phillip, do you realise that we've seen and dealt with these objections a thousand times? You're unfortunately not breaking any new ground here. I wonder when online RCs are going to come up with some progression in the debate.
What you're really saying is this: "My reading of the Bible is crystal clear. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching."
What you're really saying is this: "My reading of the Magisterium is crystal clear. Some Roman Catholics simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching."
If I need to choose between the Magisterium of Rhology and the ancient and venerable Magisterium of Rome
Thank God that's a false dilemma.
Thank God also that I haven't made any statement that would reasonably lead a person to that conclusion.
Peace,
Rhology
*** "Namely, it's clear you're not a big fan of the Bible. You love the RCC more than God's Word. Typical, really, and typically sad." ***
ReplyDeletePlease, that was unnecessary.
The Bible is very dear to me, but so is the Church. I do not think the two can or should be divided or pitted against each other.
We're descending into word games and circular arguments here, both of which are useless.
I will try to sum up my rather scattered thoughts with these final remarks.
I concede that a Catholic must "interpret" Magisterial teaching, insomuch as everything in life must be "interpreted." (Though I do not think such teachings are nearly as complex or ambiguous as you make them seem. Most dissenting Catholics embrace heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion.)
Basically, I an arguing that the Catholic system -- with its magisterial episcopate orbiting around the Chair of Peter -- while imperfect, is (a) Scripturally sanctioned and (b) preferable to the typical Protestant situation, which is doctrinal anarchy of a million miniature magisteriums.
I have already admitted that I am uncertain about papal infallibility; thus I also entertain doubts about the exact nature of the Magisterium. These are not hills I will die upon.
Thankfully, my Catholic faith does not rise or fall based on an infallible Papacy or an impeccable Magisterium. If that's what you think Catholicism comes down to, go spend a weekend at some lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to the Trinity.
You are clearly more familiar with these apologetical debates than I am. I applaud your skill and erudition. Thank you for humoring me. This is not my turf. You have given me much to consider. Thank you again. God bless.
"How would I as a practicing Catholic have access to this alleged "court of final appeal"? Would I file a challenge to the Vatican and have them put me on the docket?"
ReplyDeleteYes, actually, something very much like that. I know a number of people who have gone to Rome to settle all manner of contested issues.
Of course, often the local bishop, or the national synod, can end a heated affair long before it climbs so high. That's ideal, really, given the Church's ideal of subsidiarity.
I have already admitted that I am uncertain about papal infallibility; thus I also entertain doubts about the exact nature of the Magisterium. These are not hills I will die upon.
ReplyDeleteThankfully, my Catholic faith does not rise or fall based on an infallible Papacy ... If that's what you think Catholicism comes down to, go spend a weekend at some lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to the Trinity.
Philip, this seems like a cop-out to me -- Rome made these dogmas, they expect them to be taken seriously. You are laughing them off. This is called "Cafeteria Catholicism".
(And I say "hierarchy" all the time, because it is a dogmatic statement of how the Roman Catholic Church defines itself. See Lumen Gentium 8).
I faced this question -- do I "wink and nod" at some of the things I disagree with? Or do I leave? I decided I would take Roman pronouncements seriously. And then I seriously rejected what they stood for.
I want to be clear, I left Rome, and came to a closer relationship with Christ. Whether you think you are being "Catholic" or not, you are laughing off something that the official church, dogmatically, wants you to take seriously.
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#87
John,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're saying. But Protestantism is, to my eye, guilty of countless mistakes and errors.
So maybe the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome are not as grand as the Church declares.
That pales in comparison to the errors that abound outside the Church.
Where can I go to receive the Body and Blood of Christ? What other congregation shows proper reverence to the God-bearer, the very vessel that carried the Word of God?
Anglicanism, perhaps? But it is coming apart at the seams precisely for lack of authority. Canterbury refuses to enforce the traditional morals and creeds.
The Magisterium (despite the protests of dissident Catholics) continues to proclaim Christological, Trinitarian, moral, and sacramental orthodoxy.
I can not say the same thing about any other church.
I am going to step away from this conversation for a little while and think about the things I have learned. I appreciate everyone's time and energy. It was, if nothing else, a great educational experience.
Philip Jude: "I have already admitted that I am uncertain about papal infallibility"
ReplyDeleteVatican I: "we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA.... he possesses.... that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy....
"So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."
Philip- you must admit, they've got you over a barrel here. Might as well go whole hog and become an atheist- or at least a Unitarian.
ReplyDeletecheers from rainy Vienna, zilch
Might as well go whole hog and become an atheist
ReplyDeletePhillip, NNNOOOO!!! It's a trap!
The Bible is very dear to me, but so is the Church. I do not think the two can or should be divided or pitted against each other.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, when the church we're talking about is the Roman church, conflict is unavoidable.
If RCC took more pains to make their dogma comport with Scripture, you could easily say what you say here. *I* can say it, talking about my local Baptist ch (for the most part; nobody's perfect), b/c my Baptist ch's doctrine is in line with Scripture.
Rome's is not, and that's perhaps no more clearly seen than when Roman apologists like yourself go to great trouble to deny the BIble's clarity when in fact the Bible claims clarity for itself.
I concede that a Catholic must "interpret" Magisterial teaching
Thus by your own yardstick, every RC is a Magisterium of one.
Or you could withdraw that silly "Magisterium of one" argument.
I do not think such teachings are nearly as complex or ambiguous as you make them seem. Most dissenting Catholics embrace heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion.
And aNOTHER double standard from you.
I do not think biblical teachings are nearly as complex or ambiguous as you make them seem. Most dissenting "Protestants" embrace heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion.
the Catholic system...while imperfect, is (a) Scripturally sanctioned
You haven't really argued that, at least not in this combox.
preferable to the typical Protestant situation, which is doctrinal anarchy of a million miniature magisteriums.
And you've just conceded a few sentences ago that this argument is untenable.
What else you got?
I have already admitted that I am uncertain about papal infallibility
Wait, I thought RCism was preferable to the typical Protestant situation, which is doctrinal anarchy of a million miniature magisteriums. And now you're telling me you're embracing heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion?
thus I also entertain doubts about the exact nature of the Magisterium
It's clear that the Magisterium is your final authority, and you don't know what it is?
That's one seriously messed up worldview, my friend.
I know a number of people who have gone to Rome to settle all manner of contested issues.
I've got a very long list of some other issues the Magisterium could settle but never does.
Protestantism is, to my eye, guilty of countless mistakes and errors.
So is Rome, and far worse actually. Nobody's claiming any church is perfect. The question is: Which one has it right?
Where can I go to receive the Body and Blood of Christ?
ReplyDeleteSince Christ meant that we eat and drink His body and blood by believing in HIm and coming to Him in John 6, Rome is one place where you CAN'T go for that.
Like I said, my church is always available to you.
? What other congregation shows proper reverence to the God-bearer, the very vessel that carried the Word of God?
Baptists (and Presbys) do. We show her PROPER reverence.
Rome, however, shows her undue and blasphemous reverence to her by elevating her at times above Jesus Himself and praying to her.
If that's what you think Catholicism comes down to, go spend a weekend at some lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to the Trinity.
It'd probably be easier (and more representative of practical RCism) to find a lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to Mary, Co-Redemptrix and Queen of Heaven, our savior from Jesus.
You are clearly more familiar with these apologetical debates than I am. I applaud your skill and erudition. Thank you for humoring me. This is not my turf. You have given me much to consider. Thank you again. God bless.
And thanks for coming by.
I encourage you to seek out answers to the challenges we've laid down here. I believe you'll find, if you search honestly and with a repentant heart, that these challenges have no answer in Rome, that you must come home to a church that loves and honors God's Word above its human reflection and puts its full faith in Christ alone to save.
Ah shucks, rho, I woulda had him and earned another black star from the Horned One, but you had to go spoil my evil plans.
ReplyDelete