By the way, in
case you missed it, this is one of the most profound and fundamental and dearest-to-his-heart
things that Steve Hays has ever written, imo:
Common
truth paradigm
On this view, truth is truth. Our
source of information is inconsequential. If a general moral norm comes from
Scripture, that’s applicable to believers and unbelievers alike. If it’s true,
then it’s true for both groups. It doesn’t cease to be generally true just
because it’s a revealed moral truth. It isn’t right for believers, but wrong
for unbelievers–or wrong for believers, but right for unbelievers. What’s
intrinsically right or wrong is universally binding. Not relative to believers
or unbelievers.
As well,
this is perhaps one of the most important reasons why I can’t accept the kind of
nonsense that Roman Catholics put out about to the effect that God supernaturally protects the
Roman Catholic Magisterium from error on matters of doctrine, etc., in
spite of such things as we’ve written about below. God’s truth is a whole
cloth. God, in his holy, awesome character, doesn’t make a special case for the
Roman Catholic Church to have been evil and nonsensical all of its history, and
yet still be the infallible source for his truth in the world.
God seemed capable of entrusting authority with disciples who, frankly, were less than impressive at times.
ReplyDeleteCrude, try to think about the difference between the individuals in the Bible and the elaborate system that Rome is today.
ReplyDeleteCrude, try to think about the difference between the individuals in the Bible and the elaborate system that Rome is today.
ReplyDeleteTry to think whether the difference you're mentioning is as relevant as the similarities I'm pointing out.
The RCC has not been "evil and nonsensical all of its history" either. That's complete hyperbole. I remind you, you were a catholic for, I believe, on the order of decades. Are you really saying "well, it was evil and nonsensical, but I just couldn't notice that until..." what, your 30s? 40s? 50s?
Are you really saying "well, it was evil and nonsensical, but I just couldn't notice that until..." what, your 30s? 40s? 50s?
ReplyDeleteRome has been doing what it's been doing for a long, long time. At the very least, you have to admit, either the Protestants were correct at the Reformation, or the Roman Catholic Church. The positions are mutually exclusive.
And if Rome was wrong about the Reformation, it certainly was an evil thing.
Of course, Rome has been very nonsensical too, since Constantines made the popes very wealthy and all that went to their heads. I can see Pope Damasus sitting at his desk saying, "I'm in charge, yes, I'm in charge." Really it wasn't all him. Some of his successors, too.
Think of Pope Leo the Great thinking somehow, since he was bishop of Rome, that he somehow had all the rights and prerogatives of Peter the Apostle.
So, am I really exercising "complete hyperbole"? I don't think so. History is very strange.
And Crude -- if somehow my remarks do somehow come in as "hyperbole", then remember that God enabled a donkey to speak (Numbers 22). And yes, in the simple religion practiced by common folks over the centuries, devotion to Christ could still be found. But it is as I said earlier: “if individuals who are Roman Catholic exhibit charity, it is not because of their Roman Catholicism. It is in spite of it. In spite of their adherence to [uniquely] Roman dogma, God mercifully granted that they are saved through faith in Christ, and He has prepared in advance the good works that they do, in order that his own name might be glorified”.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDelete"Not because of their Roman Catholicism"
I guess this depends upon how you define "Roman Catholicism." For instance, Mother Teresa, who gave her life to the poor, said on numerous occasions that her strength came from meeting God in the Eucharist. This sacramental spirituality is particular to Catholicism. So here we have a case of something exclusively Catholic responsible for a great exercise of virtue.
Anyway, you are being totally unfair: When a Catholic is evil, you blame his sin on the wicked Church; but when a Catholic is righteous, you do not acknowledge the holy Church as a formative influence. You can't pick and choose, especially when so many Catholic saints exhibit qualities that are distinctively "Roman": sacramental spirituality; love of Mary and the saints; respect for and submission to the bishops and the Pope; love of the Mass; etc.
You choose to see Pope Alexander VI as the standard of Catholicism, with the likes of Saint Benedict as the exception. Why not the other way around?
Again I say: the Church is visible and invisible, earthly and mystical, a society of humans and the Body of Christ. As a visible, earthly, human society, it is totally fallible. As the invisible, mystical Body of Christ, it is perfect and flawless.
The fullness of God's truth dwells in the mystical Church, and is therefore unstained by the wickedness of those wolves who have made there way among the sheep.
Any church judged by your criteria will be found wanting of virtue and guilty of grave error and sin. The thing is, most churches are a fraction the size of the Catholic Church, and so their error and sin look minute in comparison. It is a matter of perception, and I think you know this.
You do a disservice to your own intelligence, which is considerably, as well as your integrity, which is also considerable, when you play the fool on this matter.
"Crude, try to think about the difference between the individuals in the Bible and the elaborate system that Rome is today."
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with complexity? You say "elaborate" like it some four-letter word. The Catholic Church is the oldest and largest society in history: of course it is complicated, multifaceted, and even at times obscure or confusing. Indeed, I suspect that the Roman system is no more complicated than more complicated than the governing body of any Protestant church, only multiplied many countless times. Remember, we are dealing with roughly one billion souls here. That is one out of every six people on earth.
I should not be the issue. Why don't you judge the church of Rome to the same high standards you are holding me to?
ReplyDeleteIf Rome were to claim that it is just the same as any denomination, I suppose I would hold them to the same standard. But what about their own claims?
"If Rome were to claim that it is just the same as any denomination, I suppose I would hold them to the same standard. But what about their own claims?"
ReplyDeleteJohn,
I do not judge a tree by fruit that I find on the ground, so I do not judge an organization by its unfortunate cases.
To discredit the Catholic Church with the likes of Pope Alexander is to discredit the Lutheran church with the likes of some Nazi-sympathizing bishop. Clearly, neither Pope Alexander nor our fictitious Nazi-symp bishop are proper representatives of their traditions, which are rooted in love of God and neighbor.
You say that you judge the Church by her own claims, yet she never claims absolute and constant human perfection. She only claims that the bishops, under certain circumstances, are lead by the Spirit unto divine truth. This is consistent with Christ's promise regarding the Paraclete.
A pope may be a treacherous snake yet still, at certain times, receive the grace of infallibility. God often worked through flawed individuals for the good of Israel. The same is true now, with the new Israel.
Honestly, your church should have the same lofty claim as the Catholic Church, for Scripture clearly states that the Church is the Body of Christ, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, the Household of God -- yet you seem to think that it is ultimately an ordinary human institution?
And I apologize if I made you part of the argument. That was not right of me. It is below the dignity of civil conversation and contrary to the charity required of all Christians. I am most insistent that we have these important discussions without undue animosity and venom.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, John, what do you think about the many Catholic wonders, from Eucharistic miracles, to incorruptible corpses, to Marian apparitions witnessed by thousands, to bleeding statues, to stigmata wounds, to thousands of documented healings at shrines like Lourdes, and so on. I readily admit that there are hoaxes aplenty, and that this was especially the case in earlier times. However, many of these wonders occur today, even in the western "modern" world, and still evade explanation. There are indeed such occurrences in Protestantism, and even in non-Christian religions, but not in such great number and effect.
ReplyDeletePhilip: I'm in a bit of a hurry right now, but I wanted to comment on this: I am most insistent that we have these important discussions without undue animosity and venom.
ReplyDeleteMy intention is to provoke a re-opening of the discussions that took place surrounding the Reformation. Rome has a 50th coming up on Vatican II, but the Reformation is having its 500th.
I am willing to tolerate some animosity and venom on both sides in order to serve the truth. The common truth, as Steve said.
500 years ago, Rome had armies, armies of persecutors, armies of individuals willing to distort the truth of what Martin Luther was saying, and armies of Jesuits.
Today Rome has no armies; its peculiar style of persecution from back then is no longer legal and will not be tolerated.
Let's see what Martin Luther and John Calvin and the others were really saying vis a vis Rome. In fact, let's see what the Jesuits are saying now.
I am absolutely unwilling to grant Rome a single inch of its claims without them backing it up. And that doesn't mean repeating platitudes from the CCC. Someone from official Rome needs to interact with the Scriptures and history and scholarship as we know them to be, and then I'll be willing to engage in a civil discussion.
But Rome won't do that.
Rome claims it is the ultimate authority, the ultimate interpreter and representative of Christ. I've investigated those claims long enough to know that I reject them. And I'm more than willing to share with the world what I've learned.
* * *
If Rome could make a legitimate case for its own authority -- and I'm convinced it can't -- but if it (officially) were to try, I might be willing to listen and interact with it.
But no such thing exists. Only the sort of thing we've been dealing with here and in similar places for years.
"Someone from official Rome needs to interact with the Scriptures and history and scholarship as we know them to be, and then I'll be willing to engage in a civil discussion."
ReplyDeleteJohn, representatives of "official Rome" (as if this makes a difference?) HAVE DONE EXACTLY THIS, including the current pope and his predecessor. You just don't accept their conclusions. That doesn't invalidate their many works.
I have interacted with Ratzinger's work "Called to "Communion", and several others. It is farcical and totally unpersuasive. Until some Roman Catholic (an official one, not some amateur apologist) can persuade me of the Scriptural and historical case that the Roman church is what they say it is, I'm going (Lord willing) to keep doing what I'm doing. And I suspect that's the case for a lot of the folks here.
ReplyDeleteRome makes bold claims. If they are not true, they are heinous and very much anti-Christian.
I don't doubt you have trouble understanding Catholic work, because you are approaching it aggressively, with scientific scrutiny, in a spirit of animosity (as you admit).
ReplyDeleteThis is the thing: You cannot apprehend divine truth that way.
There is an ancient saying, "A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian."
There is, of course, an objective element that anyone can grasp, but your methodology is akin to performing brain surgery with a chainsaw.
This blog, for all of its virtues, is a perfect example of the Protestant mindset: confrontational, rational, scientific, independent. Natural enough, given that Protestantism was the product of men who lived for the sake of squabble. Indeed, this tendency is reflected in the absurd number of competing sects, each claiming greater purity than the next.
But this is not the Catholic way. The Catholic faith is built upon fools like Francis, mystics like Catherine of Sienna, pray-soaked monks like Thomas Aquinas.
To understand the Church, and the truth she holds, one must pray with the Church.
This truth is found in her liturgies and sacraments, in her cycles of feasts and feasts, in her penances and celebrations.
Catholicism is a mode of existence. Protestantism is a reaction against this. It is a way of thinking. See the difference? Catholicism involves the whole person, heart and mind and soul; the other involves only the mind. (Thus the Gnostic qualities of Protestantism.)
Protestantism is furthermore an attempt to scale back the boundaries of the Church, to de-sacralize people and things, time and space. It is an attempt to convert the quiet, kind, and peaceful mystery of Christianity into emotion or proposition or spectacle.
But this is impossible, for the incarnation of the Eternal Word means that every aspect of human life has been redeemed, transformed, and those who are in His Body cannot go on as the rest of the world goes on.
Have you forgotten this since your departure? Were you a victim of the terrible catechism of the post-Vatican II era, which is only now being corrected? Or do you simply reject this reality? I honestly cannot tell.
I have said before that we seem to inhabit different worlds. Your comment regarding the Catechism only confirms this hunch. I find the Catechism utterly enlightening and engrossing. Yet you see a pack of platitudes. How is such a radical impasse resolved? I, for one, and finally lost for words.
God bless and keep you and your family. Sorry for my verbosity.
And thank the Lord for those armies bankrolled by the popes, for they kept Europe safe while the likes of Martin Luther wanted to roll over and let the Mohammedan scoundrels finish what he had started: the utter destruction of Christendom!
ReplyDeleteOf course, he was rather busy convincing secular princes to ransack ancient convents and monasteries, casting poor monks and nuns onto the streets and stealing anything precious for the furtherance of their political ambitions.
In a real way, the totalitarian modern state was born from the mass of booty stolen from the Church at the urging of revolutionaries like Luther and Calvin.
I know they meant well, at least in certain areas, but my God were they mislead.
You continue to conflate "The Roman Catholic Church" with Christianity.
ReplyDeleteImagine that I have some medical credentials. If you were to come to me with a health problem, and I were to tell you, "you have to stand on your head 30 minutes a day, or you will die", you might believe me and try that for a while. But not only is your initial problem not better, but now your neck hurts and you are subject to headaches. So you will maybe at first question my advice, and then reject it. You may then, "don't go to Dr. Bugay, because he's a quack".
This is precisely the situation with Rome. People go to this "Church" (well, first of all because they are born to parents who are members there), but you stay because you think its prescriptions will cure what ails you.
The problem is, Rome's "prescriptions" are not God's scriptural prescriptions. They are something else that Rome has adopted from who knows where? They are quackery. Pious-looking "sacralized" quackery, to be sure. That's one of the reasons why I'm writing about "earliest Christianity". The origins of the quackery come not from Christ and the Apostles, but from things adopted from the pagan culture of the ancient Roman empire. Roman Catholicism has got you focused on "doing things" when Christ bids you, "only believe".
Some time ago, I saw a bishop on TV discussing the problems with western morality. His response was, among other things, to mull over on camera whether they ought to re-impose "don't eat meat on Fridays". My response to that was to think of Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal: “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”
Rome prescribes quackery, and this quackery is harmful in that it keeps people focused on the quackery, and prevents people from doing the one thing that is needed: turn to Christ in faith and repentance.
"Only believe"? The last time I looked at the scriptures, it said faith without works is dead. To me, Protestantism has been DOA (Dead On Arrival) since 1517.
ReplyDeleteAnd that old bull about the church being paganized since Constantine is just an old lie that you folks like to drag out to deny the reality that the Catholic faith is the one Christ founded. Sorry JB, we are the real deal. We can trace our history, the things we believe in, and the things we are supposed to do, right back to Our Lord and his apostles. By contrast, you can only trace your "only believism" sect back to 1517 to a confused, frightened German monk, and to a rigid, cold, austere lawyer who believed only the 'elect' (his little in group) would be 'saved'. Since Marty and John-Boy were not around in 33 AD, I have grave doubts about their teachings being the ones that Christ and his apostles taught us.
Steve Dalton, I only found this while looking for something else. But your accusations here are just more of the quackery. The “things you are supposed to do”, clearly, arise up out of Rome’s peculiar adherence to paganism, which arose, not as early as Constantine, but much farther back.
ReplyDeleteYes, “only believe” is why Christ accepts you. “Turn and be healed”. “Repent and believe”. Maybe you should read a commentary on James to understand what he is really talking about.
It’s Rome that puts you on the sacramental treadmill.