Saturday, December 09, 2017

Thomas Aquinas was the Problem; the Reformation was the Solution

“Where was your Church before Aquinas”


Ever since the Reformation, Roman Catholics have been fond of asking, “Where was your Church before the Reformation”. Protestants have a good reply to that: “Where was your Church before Aquinas”.

Peter Lombard (in his “Sentences”) summarized church teaching up to that point (approximately 1150). Aquinas later opposed Lombard on one key point (“justification extra nos”, or the external righteousness of Christ), and Luther took up Lombard’s side:


In book 1, Distinction 17 of his famed Sentences, Lombard, discussing religious justification, asked: “Is the love by which we are saved a created habit in our soul, or is it the very person of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us?” Is that which heals and saves a person part of his own nature, something he himself has developed as his own possession [inherent righteousness], or is it the indwelling spirit of God, a divine power in him but not of him [alien righteousness]?

Lombard opted for the latter solution, maintaining that the love by which people love God and their fellow man so as to merit salvation [“merit” being a whole ’nother story] was the spirit of God working internally, without their aid or volition. Man is saved by an uncreated, not a created habit, by uncreated, not created, love, by the holy spirit within, not by an acquired talent he can call his very own. When the young Luther wrote hs commentary on the Sentences in 1509/10, he strongly agreed, against the majority of scholastics, with this interpretation by Lombard.

Thomas Aquinas opposed Lombard in this issue, arguing that saving charity [“charity” being “love” in the Roman Catholic schema] must be a voluntary act arising from a disposition man could call his own.

Roman Catholics claim that Martin Luther was the innovator, but in reality, Thomas Aquinas was a far more extensive innovator than Luther ever was. The problem was, “The Church of Rome” liked what Aquinas had to say, and they canonized it.

The Reformers sought to roll back many of the changes that Aquinas put into place. And in doing so, they relied on earlier traditions than did Aquinas.

It was Aquinas who not only introduced Aristotle to the Roman church, but he wrapped Aristotelian philosophy around Christian doctrine and handed it to “the Church” as a complete package. One that supported the Roman Church’s view of its own authority and necessity.



The grand synthesis with Aristotelian philosophy


Here’s why “Thomism” works today: Roman Catholicism is built on “Thomism”. That is, from, say, the late middle ages all the way through to about 1900, “Thomism” provided the philosophical (and theological) building blocks for Roman Catholicism. At the Council of Trent, Thomism ruled the thinking of the day. At the Vatican I Council, Thomism ruled the thinking of the day.

When you see a phrase like “Thomas Aquinas points out … ”, as you do in the article that Steve linked below, keep in mind that if Thomas said it, then somebody else most likely said it first. And they frequently said it in a different context.

Thomas was a solid thinker, to be sure. But many of the thoughts that he built with were not his own. They were an amalgamation of other sources. And frequently, those sources were not sound sources. Much of what he said had an “early church” (i.e. “neo-Platonic”) philosophical foundation.

And much of this came in the form of a reliance on Pseudo-Dionysius (a 6th century neo-Platonic writer who either portrayed himself or whose works were falsely portrayed as having been written by the 1st century companion of Paul from Acts 17).

Aquinas’s writings on the papacy were also shaped by forgeries such as the 9th century Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals – Aquinas was a great “synthesizer” and he synthesized such things into other, more legitimate writings.

Perhaps the “synthesis” that Aquinas is best known for is his grand synthesis with Aristotelian philosophy.

Ancient Greece had an abundance of philosophers, most famously, Socrates, his pupil Plato, and Plato’s pupil, Aristotle.

Of course, each of these men had their own followings, and by the time the early church was spreading out in the Greek-thinking Roman empire (the Romans had very few thoughts of their own), much of Aristotle was lost, except to some in the Persian hinterlands.

After the Crusades, Aristotle was brought back into the Roman sphere, and for a while, Aristotelian thinking was causing quite a stir.

Albert the Great was probably the first European Medieval thinker to study Aristotle – and Aquinas was his student. It was Aquinas who put into place “the Synthesis”.

Here is what Steven Ozment (“The Age of Reform, 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe” New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ©1980) had to say about Aquinas’s synthesis:

Before the Ockhamists (Ockham: 1288-1347) made Pelagianism a major issue in medieval theology, the scholastic debate over religious justification focused on the question of how grace could be present in man’s soul. How can something divine be within human nature? If medieval philosophers had problems conceiving the existence of a universal within a particular, there were even greater difficulties for theologians who tried to imagine godly purity within a finite sinful creature.

Peter Lombard determined the direction of this prolonged debate. In book 1, Distinction 17 of his famed Sentences, Lombard, discussing religious justification, asked: “Is the love by which we are saved a created habit in our soul, or is it the very person of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us?” Is that which heals and saves a person part of his own nature, something he himself has developed as his own possession, or is it the indwelling spirit of God, a divine power in him but not of him? Lombard opted for the latter solution.

Here we see Luther’s extra nos justification. Lombard (1100-1160) had agreed with Luther’s solution.

Lombard opted for the latter solution, maintaining that the love by which people love God and their fellow man so as to merit salvation [“merit” being a whole ’nother story] was the spirit of God working internally, without their aid or volition. Man is saved by an uncreated, not a created habit, by uncreated, not created, love, by the holy spirit within, not by an acquired talent he can call his very own. When the young Luther wrote hs commentary on the Sentences in 1509/10, he strongly agreed, against the majority of scholastics, with this interpretation by Lombard.

Thomas Aquinas opposed Lombard in this issue, arguing that saving charity [“charity” being “love” in the Roman Catholic schema] must be a voluntary act arising from a disposition man could call his own.



Intrinsic righteousness as the novelty


So here is Aquinas, insisting (contra everything that the prior church had taught) that man’s salvation must be intrinsic to himself, not “extrinsic” – that is, it’s not the indwelling Holy Spirit that provides man’s salvation – but rather, it’s man’s own acts which must make him righteous.

This is where “Augustine’s Goof” finds itself in the middle ages – in a kind of hangover from Augustine’s iustificare it’s “the bookend” on another turning point in “Roman” “Catholic” history. Continuing with Ozment:

[Aquinas] wrote in pointed summary:

Peter Lombard held that charity was not a created reality, but the Holy Spirit dwelling in the soul. He did not mean that the Holy Spirit was identified with our movement of love, but that charity, unlike the other virtues, such as faith and hope, was not elicited from a habit which was really our own. [In this] he was trying to enhance charity …. This opinion [however] tends rather to discredit charity. It would mean that active charity rises from the Holy Spirit so moving the in that we are merely passive, and not responsible for our loving or otherwise. This militates against the character of a voluntary act. Charity would not then be a voluntary act. There is a problem here, for our loving is very much our own.

According to Aquinas, grace is in the soul as a reality connatural [innate] to man; otherwise, saving acts of charity [again, the whole “merit” thing] would be done involuntarily and, as it were, by another. Although its ultimate origin is divine, the love by which people love God and their fellow man in a saving way is created love, a truly human habit.

We see here where the Reformed responses then, come, vs Aquinas.

Individuals of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods actually spent the time to sort out all of these things – that’s why their writings are so voluminous, and that’s why we don’t really understand what they were saying. It’s because the medieval writers were seemingly so far afield, so much of the time, that it is (in our age) just simpler to chuck them out the window.


William Edgar (in “A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institues”, eds. Hall and Lillback, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, ©2008) points out that “What [Calvin] attacks most in his admonitions to properly respect others [“love of God and neighbors”] is pride”. Edgar continues:

Following tradition, [Calvin] recognizes this greatest vice [pride] as the mother of all sins. Throughout the Institutes Calvin stresses the importance of considering our tendency to arrogance and merit. He reminds us that any talent that we have received is from the Lord, a gift, not a meritorious accomplishment. When we realize that we have nothing that we have not received, then we may bestow to others the honor that they are due, being properly reverent and lowly toward them.

He goes on … to remind us that any gift we have is for the sake of the church. Following Paul in his letters to the Corinthians, and many other biblical passages, he explains that every good gift we have is meant not for ourselves, but to be distributed for our neighbor’s good. He introduces the notion of stewardship, which is so strongly present in his any works, which would become so central to later Reformed theology (326-327).

The discussion here involves a whole range of theological topics – the Image of God in man, nature and grace, the state of fallen man, the freedom vs the bondage of the human will. Each of these topics has its own historical trajectories.

Edgar notes in a footnote, “while reminding the reader about the nobility of the human race and our free will, [Calvin] explains that the original sin has damaged our grandeur through pride. In his long and thoughtful defense of free will, his chief concern is that we distinguish between our natural free will and the part of freedom which has been lost through sin (see 2.1.4) (pg 326).

But the bottom line is that Aquinas followed an Aristotelian notion of affixing “forms” within “the thing itself”, and thus, the “love” with which man loves (and with which he obtains inherent merit) must itself inhere within the person. But Rome and its hierarchy, its sacerdotal priesthood, is made more important in this scheme, and the work of the Holy Spirit in man is reduced. The intitiative of God is made subservient to the sacraments of Rome. Thus, as Ozment continues with Aquinas:

Aquinas found a solution in Aristotelian philosophy. Grace, he argued, is in the soul not as a substantial form, but as an accidental form (forma accidentalis). In Aristotelian philosophy a substantial form denotes the essence of a thing, that which makes it what it is or in terms of which it is defined. Man’s substantial form, for example, is his reason; reason makes man a unique creature and defines his nature. An accidental form, by contrast, while very much a part of an individual, remains nonessential to its definition as the particular thing that it is. A man’s color, height, and such acquired abilities as running and singing, for example, are accidental forms, nonessential to his being as a rational creature (Ozment, pgs. 31-32).

The Sacramental Treadmill
The Sacramental Treadmill
What this leads to is the concept of “the infused habit of grace”. It is with this infusion (for Rome, it comes at baptism) that makes one a Christian. (In Aquinas’s day, only those within the Church, or desiring to be so – having a “baptism of desire” – could be saved). For Aquinas, someone not having this “infused habit of grace” would not be a Christian – this is how Rome avoids the notion that it is a Pelagian system.

However, after baptism, whereas this “infused habit of grace” could never be completely lost, it could still “for long periods of time go unexercised”. And if it lasted long enough, and if you died outside this “state of grace”, you don’t end up in heaven when you die.

This state of affairs is enabled by the “accidental” concept: “grace is not in the soul as its substance; neither is it there so as to be absolutely no part of it; it is really but accidentally there (Ozment, 33).

So you get this infusion “accidental grace”, and it is yours then, throughout your lifetime, either to work to increase it (as a habit), or to let it go dormant. Mortal sin would make it go away, and ONLY the sacrament of penance (mediated ONLY through the Roman priesthood) could bring it back.

This is why the Roman Church embraced Aquinas so enthusiastically – because Aquinas enshrined the Roman Catholic sacraments as the primary, and even the only means of grace.




Lombard, Scotus and Luther vs Aquinas on Righteousness


Aquinas – “Thomism” – didn’t win the day because it was the most brilliant or sensible thinking of the middle ages. It won the day because Rome saw that his “synthesis” gave the most enablement to its own evolving theory of how the sacraments worked (and provided “a reason why” for the Sacerdotal system of mediation) – that’s why Thomism is still with us today.

Not only did Thomas disagree with earlier understandings of grace (see Lombard, above), but in his own time, he had fierce opponents. Duns Scotus was one of these. Here is how Scotus perceived Aquinas:

Duns Scotus (ca 1265-1308) led a critical Franciscan reaction to Aquinas’s views on the infused habit of grace. Strongly influenced by Augustine’s teaching on predestination, Scotus looked with suspicion on the definition of Christians in terms of something they could possess as their own within their souls. Did this mean that God, who is omnipotent and free over creation, was in some way bound to accidental forms within the souls of mere creatures, obliged to save any and all who tried to love him habitually? Was not God free to be where and with whom he pleased, regardless of the qualifying circumstances? (Ozment 33)

We see this question asked over and over again in Christian history.

What God decreed in man’s regard was far more important to his salvation than any quality of soul he might come to possess; people were saved only because God first willed it, never because they were intrinsically worth it.

Before Ockham turned his razor against Scotist and Thomist epistemology, Scotus applied a razor of his own to Thomist soteriology on this particular issue. Scotus stated his principle of theological economy in the axiom “Nothing created must, for reasons intrinsic to it, be accepted by God” (nihil creatum formaliter est a deo acceptandum). This meant that created and finite could in no way could determine what was uncreated and infinite. Every relationship God had outside himself was, by definition, absolutely free, contingent, unconditioned, in no way obligatory. From Scotus’s perspective, Aquinas bound God too closely to the church’s system of grace and tended to lose sight of the great distance that obtained between God’s eternal will and its execution in time through created orders and finite agents. (Ozment 33)

One might go further and suggest that not only did Aquinas bind God too closely to the church’s system of grace, but he also bound it too closely, not only to “created orders and finite agents”, but to the most wicked scum of the earth popes who ever lived.

Here is where a study of God’s holiness, of his holy character, are highly in order. This is a matter of Who God is.

Continuing with Ozment:

Thomist theology seemed to run the danger of entangling the divine will in the secondary causation of the church, priests, sacraments, and accidental forms of grace. While Aquinas believed with every medieval theologian that God could never properly be called a debtor to man, he did argue that God was a debtor to himself, to what he, as First Cause, had established. In this sense God remained obligated to himself to carry through to a salutary conclusion what he had freely set in motion, a debtor to his chosen system of salvation.

Scotus certainly had no desire to place God’s ordinations in doubt, but he did look on them as utterly contingent and playing only a secondary role in the economy of salvation. Severe qualifications were theoretically placed on the media of salvation—churches priests, sacraments, and infused grace—lest they presume upon God’s sovereignty over his creation and the primacy of his will in salvation (Ozment 33-34) ….

This subtle but important difference between Scotus and Aquinas on the nature and role of secondary causes in salvation found expression also in their understanding of the way sacraments work. For Aquinas, sacraments were instrumental causes of grace and salvation. They really contained and communicated grace; that was why they were so indispensable to salvation. A parallel may here be drawn with Thomist epistemology: as Aquinas believed that universals were really in things and, as so-called intelligible species, also really in the mind, so he believed that grace was really in sacramental rituals and elements and, as an accidental form, also really in the soul. Scotus, by contrast, identified with a tradition that explained the efficacy of the sacraments in terms of a covenant made by God.

Sacraments work not because they intrinsically convey grace, as a cause intrinsically contains and conveys its effects (Aquinas), but because God has agreed to be present with his grace when the sacraments are performed; they are conditiones sine quibus not (“conditions without which not”) for the reception of grace. Where Aquinas placed the secondary cause, the sacrament itself, in the foreground, Scotus placed the will of God. Sacraments were efficacious media of grace for both, but for Scotus they were emphatically subordinate to the divine will (Ozment 35).

100 comments:

  1. John, McGrath has an interesting discussion about the difference between Scotus and Aquinas on his book on justification. He made it clear that Scotus view of grace and divine acceptance was very influential to the Reformers and the nomilist camp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the heads-up Vincent. I'm sure that McGrath would have talked about that. I haven't read it for a while (I read it through some years ago) -- as you go further into these topics, you learn more, and the hope is that you are better able to understand the information over time.

      Delete
    2. About the only thing Scotus got right was the Immaculate Conception.

      Delete
    3. About the only thing Scotus got right was the Immaculate Conception.

      You are, of course, able to demonstrate precisely what he said, and precisely how he got things wrong. Right? Or are you just making hollow assertions?

      Delete
    4. I don't make hollow assertions. Maybe you do.
      Aquinas was actually out of sync with his own Dominican order on this. The Dominican's kept this feast although Aquinas speculated otherwise.
      The dunces ( derived from Duns Scotus ) were being bested by the Dominicans in every debate held in those days. The story says ( and why would I doubt it? ) that Mary came to Blessed Scotus and told him he would be able to defeat the Dominicans in debate if he would champion her Immaculate Conception.

      Delete
    5. Yes, Mary was a real gamer. She knew how to roll with the best of them.

      On your own terms, Aquinas, who "got everything right", was a disappointment for rejecting Big Momma's claims to Immaculate Conception. So she goes and custs a deal with Scotus, and says -- your words -- "The story says ( and why would I doubt it? ) that Mary came to Blessed Scotus and told him he would be able to defeat the Dominicans in debate if he would champion her Immaculate Conception."

      Meanwhile, Aquinas wins anyway, and yet Big Momma gets her way. There's being true to your word.

      Delete
    6. " Mary was a gamer"? "Big Momma"? Are we talking about the Mother of God? Or your girlfriend?

      Delete
    7. The Mary who promised to rig the deal for Scotus and then let him down ("told him he would be able to defeat the Dominicans in debate if he would champion her Immaculate Conception"). As "the story says" which you do not seem to disbelieve.

      I was playing off your treatment of her.

      Delete
  2. John Bugay,
    Did Mary "let him down"? He won the debate didn't he? Scotus' view is the accepted one. Aquinas was wrong.
    As a Bible Only kinda' guy, you needn't trouble yourself with anything but the words of scripture. The Woman of Gen 3:15 is at total enmity with the Serpent of that verse and Rev 12. You can either be one of her collective seed or one of the devil's followers. It's your choice.
    You might give Jn 19 a quick scan too. Do you take the Woman to be your mother? Or do you mock her as "Big Momma"?
    ( Sheesh! so much for all generations calling her blessed. )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i) You're assuming that the woman of Gen 3:15 and/or Rev 12 refers to Mary. But unless we grant the authority of traditional Roman Catholic exegesis, that appeal is viciously circular.

      Before you can prooftext Mariology, you must establish the claims of Rome.

      ii) BTW, how many modern Catholic Bible scholars, bishops, or even popes think Gen 2-3 is even historical?

      iii) Jesus doesn't say Mary is every Christian's mother. In context, he entrusts her to the care of St. John. That's the point. He's to care for her as if she was his own mother. Care for her physical needs during her lifetime, now that Jesus is returning to the Father.

      Delete
    2. Steve,
      Yes, by proof texting Rome's claims I could take all the marbles. That would be too easy.
      But just for fun, let's stay with proving Mary is the Woman, of Gen 3:15, Rev 12 and Jn 19, okay?

      Gen 3 and Rev 12 are talking about the same Jesus and the same Serpent, right? Then they are talking about the same Woman too. Which woman gave birth to Jesus? You can't say the Child is a definite person and the serpent is a definite person but then give an allegorical meaning to the Woman as Israel or Church.

      As for Jn 19, please don't tell me Jesus was such a negligent son that it wasn't until the 11th hour, as He was gasping His last, that He remembered to keep the Law and make provisions for His widowed mother.

      ( Actually, as He knew He would be back in 3 days, He really needn't have concerned Himself with this bit of housekeeping while engaged in the business of saving mankind and throwing down the prince of this world. What was the rush? He was going to be around for 40 days to tie up any unfinished business before Ascending to the Father, right?)

      If you read the passage prayerfully, you will see that John was given into Mary's care before she was entrusted unto him. This was a rather strange thing to do as John's own mother was standing within earshot and didn't object to her boy being made care taker of someone else's mom, especially if the other woman had a passel of her own whelps to take care of her.

      St. John, not mentioned by name, represents every beloved disciple, every member of the seed of the Woman of Rev 12 who keep the commandments of God.

      Steve, every one of Jesus' 7 utterances from the cross fulfilled prophecy and pertained to salvation. This is no exception.

      Delete
    3. i) You're oversimplifying both Gen 3 and Rev 12. In context, the "seed" has singular and collective referents. Immediate and distant referents.

      ii) In addition, you're collapsing the type/antitype relation.

      iii) The woman in Rev 12 personifies the people of God. It includes Exodus typology/imagery, alluding to the OT covenant community–as well as Christian references. Keep in mind that Israelites were the progenitors of the Messiah. Hence, the genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke.

      We have another example of collective feminine personification in the "bride" (Rev 17; 19; 21).

      Although Satan is Christ's ultimate opponent in Revelation, Satan has many operates in Revelation. So you can't confine opposition to Christ to Satan. Herod wasn't Satan.

      You then burn a straw man by pretending that my explanation amounts to a last-minute thought on Jesus' part. I appreciate the fact that you can't address the real argument.

      There's a difference between having a plan and implementing the plan. The fact that one implements a plan at a particular time doesn't mean it wasn't planned ahead of time. In the nature of the case, implementation awaits the time when it needs to be activated. Sorry if that's too subtle for you.

      The "behold your mother/behold your son" is a reciprocal principle based on the relation of the caregiver to his charge. It isn't about a before and after relation. Rather, they go together.

      You pretend that my explanation is a stopgap measure during Holy Saturday, rather than for the duration of her life, after the Ascension. Once again, I appreciate your need to burn a straw man.

      John doesn't represent "every beloved disciple." That designation distinguishes him from others in the Gospel of John.

      Even if we grant your illogical statical hermeneutical rule, that means the odds of this pertaining to salvation are 7-1 against your interpretation.

      Delete
    4. Steve,
      Revelation has polyvalent interpretations. The Woman can be Israel. It can be thee Church. But it is most definitely Mary as she literally gave birth to Jesus. Again, you can interpret a passage of scripture literally or allegorically. But you may not interpret the Serpent and Jesus one way and the Woman the other way.
      Rev 12 says that the Dragon is the ancient serpent. Nothing allegorical there. The seed has both a collective and a singular interpretation but there is no doubt who the man-child is, is there? Also, Israel does not "keep the testimony of Jesus".
      And I don't confine the opposition to Christ to Satan. The 7 headed Herodian dynasty ( there were 7 Herods and 10 caesars at the time of the destruction of the Temple. That is a major theme in Revelation ) is not the only enemy, indeed. As matter of fact, the enmity of Gen 3, created by God and placed between the serpent and the seed is also against the Woman. It is especially against the woman as Jesus is God and therefore holds the devil in existence. The Woman is, like the devil, a creature.

      The Fathers called Mary the New Eve. Unless a woman had a part to play in overthrowing the devil, the devil is not sufficiently humbled. He seduced a woman in the fall so it is fitting that a woman participate in his defeat.

      You said, "I appreciate the fact that you can't address the real argument. "

      Well Steve, just what is your real argument? Tell me.

      You then get snotty and say, "Sorry if that's too subtle for you." I can only assume you are frustrated and can't prove your case as you haven't said anything subtle yet.

      You deny John represents each and everyone who follows Jesus. Okay, then you tell me the significance of the Jesus' words to His mother and John on this occasion. Remember the context as you do so, though. It was while He was in the middle of saving the world. Did Christ take time out from this work just to make provisions for His mom?
      You can insult and be snotty all you want but you have not addressed what I said yet. Please do so.

      Delete
    5. "Revelation has polyvalent interpretations. The Woman can be Israel. It can be thee Church. But it is most definitely Mary as she literally gave birth to Jesus. Again, you can interpret a passage of scripture literally or allegorically."

      This is not a question of allegorical interpretation, but allegorical genre. Rev 4-22 is arguably an allegory. That's not an add-on.

      And consider how the chapter begins. A woman and a dragon in the sky. That's figurative imagery.

      "But you may not interpret the Serpent and Jesus one way and the Woman the other way."

      I most certainly may, and should, interpret the woman collectively if the text itself contains collectivist interpretive clues, like the Exodus typology.

      
"Also, Israel does not 'keep the testimony of Jesus'."

      You're not paying attention to what I wrote" "alluding to the OT covenant community–as well as Christian references." Notice the second clause.

      "And I don't confine the opposition to Christ to Satan."

      You're not tracking your own argument, which depends on a one-to-one correspondence: dragon=Satan, man-child=Jesus, woman=Mary

      But if the opposition to Christ is not comfined to Satan, then you're triangulation falls apart.
      "The Fathers called Mary the New Eve."

      An illicit argument from authority inasmuch as you first need to establish the authority of the church fathers to leverage your claim.

      "Well Steve, just what is your real argument? Tell me."

      Been there, done that.

      "Okay, then you tell me the significance of the Jesus' words to His mother and John on this occasion."

      Been there, done that.

      "Did Christ take time out from this work just to make provisions for His mom?"

      He doesn't take time out of dying on the cross. He's dying regardless of what he does while he's dying.
      His widowed mother was dependent on her eldest son. But he was returning to the Father.

      So he commends her to the care of his most trusted disciple–perhaps because he and his younger stepbrothers were estranged (7:5).

      Delete
    6. Ha! Now who is asserting what he needs to prove? jesus had no brothers, step or german.

      Delete
    7. So you disbelieve Jn 7:5.

      Delete
  3. Steve,
    You said,
    "Jesus doesn't say Mary is every Christian's mother."

    Did Mary agree to be the mother of Christ? The whole Christ?
    The fathers said, "She who gives birth to a head only gives birth to a monster".
    May is mother of the whole Christ, Head and Body/members. On Calvary her Annunciation fiat was ratified. But as no mother gives birth to her whole family at once, but to one child at a time, we are born individually in Baptism, the laver of rebirth or, as the Fathers said, the amniosis of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Did Mary agree to be the mother of Christ?"

      It wasn't a divine request. God didn't ask permission. Rather, he told her what he was going to do with her. Not a proposal for her consideration. Didn't put it up for a vote.

      "The whole Christ?"

      Actually, she didn't know in advance what-all she was taking on.

      It's like God calling Moses or the prophets. They don't know what they're getting into. They were drafted. Conscripted.

      "The fathers said…"

      Another illicit argument from authority. You need to establish the authority of the church fathers before you can try to cite them to leverage your claims.

      "On Calvary her Annunciation fiat was ratified."

      The Annunciation was God's fiat, not hers.

      "we are born individually in Baptism, the laver of rebirth…"

      Once again, you're begging the question by appealing to baptismal generation. That's not a given when you argue with a Protestant.

      "as the Fathers said, the amniosis of the Church."

      Fanciful metaphors.

      You don't have the foggiest notion of how to argue with Protestants on their own grounds. You simply argue with Protestants on Catholic grounds. But that's a non-starter inasmuch as we don't grant your criteria.

      If you're going to invoke Catholic criteria when you argue with a Protestant, you need to justify your criteria. That's not something you're entitled to take for granted when you come onto a Protestant blog, as if we should instantly acquiesce to your operating assumptions. That's the very issue in dispute.

      Delete
  4. First, the problem with Lombard's position is it doesn't distinguish between the gift and giver as cath ency notes:
    " Is this grace of condition or state, as Peter Lombard (Sent., I, dist. xvii, 18) held, identical with the Holy Spirit, whom we may call the permanent, uncreated grace (gratia increata)? It is quite impossible. For the person of the Holy Ghost cannot be poured out into our hearts (Romans 5:5), nor does it cleave to the soul as inherent justice (Trent, sess. VI, can. xi), nor can it be increased by good works (loc. cit., can. xxiv), and all this is apart from the fact that the justifying grace in Holy Writ is expressly termed a "gift [or grace] of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38; 10:45), and as the abiding seed of God (1 John 3:9). From this it follows that the grace must be as distinct from the Holy Ghost as the gift from the giver and the seed from the sower; consequently the Holy Spirit is our holiness, not by the holiness by which He Himself is holy, but by that holiness by which He makes us holy. He is not, therefore, the causa formalis, but merely the causa efficiens, of our holiness."

    This is why EOxy has the essence-energies distinction. So it is hardly innovative or due to Aquinas and his evil philosophy (as if the Reformers weren't influenced by philosophy). The statement "So here is Aquinas, insisting (contra everything that the prior church had taught)" is definitely inaccurate (I mean you criticize Augustine immediately after it) as is your apparent casting of Aquinas as some crypto-semi Pelagian in your use of Lombard against him.

    Secondly, Scotus' view seems to be just a flavor of voluntarism. But he's not all bad - he is beatified after all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you please elaborate on why the essence-energies distinction is important in this matter? I always looked at that as Neo-Platonism, not a deposit from the apostles.

      Delete
    2. Geoff and CVD, I'm going to try to respond to this as I'm able in the near future.

      Delete
  5. John Bugay,

    "But Rome and its hierarchy, its sacerdotal priesthood, is made more important in this scheme, and the work of the Holy Spirit in man is reduced. The intitiative of God is made subservient to the sacraments of Rome. "

    How is the Holy Spirit reduced? The initiative of God is made subservient? Really?
    Then you can be accused of the same thing. Faith is the conduit by which a man is justified, right? Faith belongs to the man, it is his Faith, right? God doesn't justify people who reject Faith does He?

    Do you believe God creates each individual soul at the point where sperm meets egg? Or do you believe God creates souls and has them kicking around somewhere waiting to be infused into the conceptus? Maybe you believe that God refrains from infusing a soul, an animating principle, into the material supplied by the parents if He so chooses? If this is true, why are some babies conceived in rape, incest or fornication? Does God cooperate with sin?

    Humans do not reproduce. They PRO-create. God and man cooperate. God does not create ex nihilo unless man acts. Would you say that nature, the system God set up, robs God of His initiative? Does it bind Him? When sperm and egg come together in an adulterous encounter, God acts. Every time.

    When the priest says the words over bread and wine, when the Trinitarian formula is pronounced while water is poured, God acts. Every time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    "You don't have the foggiest notion of how to argue with Protestants on their own grounds...If you're going to invoke Catholic criteria when you argue with a Protestant, you need to justify your criteria. That's not something you're entitled to take for granted when you come onto a Protestant blog,..."

    What?!? Are you saying that I cannot argue as a catholic on a protestant blog? Ha! The onus is on YOU to do the proving if you are going to address Catholic issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, you're not *arguing* as a Catholic. Rather, you're *asserting* as a Catholic. You give no reason for a Protestant to agree with you.

      Delete
    2. Steve,
      "You give no reason for a Protestant to agree with you."

      You give no reasons why a Catholic should agree with you.

      Delete
    3. I've done hundreds of posts on the subject. But I appreciate your backdoor admission that you've given us no reason to agree with you.

      Delete
  7. Steve,

    "It wasn't a divine request. God didn't ask permission. Rather, he told her what he was going to do with her. Not a proposal for her consideration. Didn't put it up for a vote."

    Then why did Mary say, "Let it be done unto me according to they word"?

    Then you go on to say,

    "Actually, she didn't know in advance what-all she was taking on."

    Of course Mary didn't know every single thing about her future. No more than a couple do when they exchange married vows. They step out on Faith.
    Still, Mary knew the prophecies of the Suffering Servant. She knew she was going to suffer. And this was brought out further by Simeon, too.
    And please notice, at the Annunciation is the first explicit revelation of all three Persons of the Trinity. Mary must have known something more than you are willing to concede to her.

    As for the Fathers, go tell John Bugay that he shouldn't be appealing to Lombard as you go by the Bible Alone.
    ( So far, Steve, it is I who have been deftly using the Bible, logic and the fathers while you have only been asserting, "been there, done that". You may have been there but you ain't done that yet. Snottiness doesn't prove your position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you dodge the fact that God didn't ask Mary for permission. I appreciate your tacit surrender.

      It was a divine fait accompli.

      "As for the Fathers, go tell John Bugay that he shouldn't be appealing to Lombard as you go by the Bible Alone."

      Lombard isn't a church father.

      You also fail to grasp the elementary principle of responding to an opponent on his own grounds. Catholic apologists cite church history in support of their position. Bugay is showing that church history undermines their claim.

      That's not inconsistent with sola Scriptura. If Catholicism comes up short with measured by its own yardstick, that doesn't commit a non-Catholic to that yardstick.

      Delete
    2. Steve,
      Mary was free to say no.
      I don't remember saying Lombard was a Church Father. I merely said he was an extra-biblical source.

      "You also fail to grasp the elementary principle of responding to an opponent on his own grounds."

      What are your grounds Steve? The Bible? What did John Bugay say that I did not respond to?

      Delete
    3. Where does the text state that Mary was free to say no?

      Delete
  8. Steve,
    You cry foul for my assertion of Catholicism on a protestant blog. What if I assert the Bible on a Protestant blog? Is that kosher with you? No tricky Catholic slight of hand. No Jesuit games. Just the Bible, okay?

    1.In Acts 2;41 it says 3,000 souls were added to their number ( the Church ) by Baptism.

    2. Baptism is the laver of rebirth according to Titus 3:5 and John 3.

    3. By Baptism we put on Christ, are born into one Body, are given the Spirit of adoption so we can cry Abba.

    Are you with me Steve? Hanging in there? Let's continue.

    4. The Church, the Jerusalem from above is our mother according to Galatians.

    5. Mary is the archetype of the Church. Actually, Mary was the Church for a while. Revelation 12 says the Woman is the mother of all who follow Jesus. Did the Church give birth to Jesus? NO! Did the Israel of the Apocalypse follow Jesus? Or did they reject the Christians?
    Mary gave birth to Jesus, Steve. Go back to the last verse in Rev 11, right before Rev 12. Notice the mention of the Ark. The Bible says Mary is the Ark. ( Please lead with your chin and challenge me on this so I can wax even more eloquent! ) Rev 12 says Mary is the Woman of this passage AND Gen 3:15. The same John who wrote Rev 12 just so happened to write Jn 19. It's the same Woman in all 3 passages.

    The Church is our mother. Mary is our Mother. Both are Virgin and Mother. Both are sinless. The Church is full of sinners but is sinless. At the point of entry into the Church, everyone is sinless, regenerated. born from above.

    Steve, for you fellows, the Church is just a collection of sinners who may or may not choose to fellowship together or share the same doctrines. She is no bigger than the some of her parts. That isn't the Church of the Bible.

    So, if you think I am pulling some romish fast talk, prove it. Prove it from the Bible. Ask John Bugay to help you. I am all ears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No tricky Catholic slight of hand."

      Did you mean "sleight of hand"?

      "1.In Acts 2;41 it says 3,000 souls were added to their number ( the Church ) by Baptism."

      It doesn't say they were added by baptism. Rather, it says they were baptized after believing the Gospel. By itself, baptism doesn't add them to the church. You omit their faith, in response to the Gospel.

      Moreover, the fact that baptism is a membership rite doesn't imply baptismal regeneration, anymore than a membership rite like circumcision regenerates.

      "Baptism is the laver of rebirth according to Titus 3:5 and John 3."

      You offer no exegetical argument to warrant your baptismal interpretation.

      "3. By Baptism we put on Christ, are born into one Body, are given the Spirit of adoption so we can cry Abba."

      Spirit-baptism, not water-baptism.

      "4. The Church, the Jerusalem from above is our mother according to Galatians."

      Paul doesn't identify the Jerusalem from above as "The Church." Try again.

      "Mary is the archetype of the Church."

      Assuming what you need to prove.

      "Revelation 12 says the Woman is the mother of all who follow Jesus. Did the Church give birth to Jesus?"

      You've already been corrected on that. israel was the genealogical source of the Messiah.

      "The Bible says Mary is the Ark."

      Except that it doesn't.

      "The Church is full of sinners but is sinless."

      You're a good little windup toy soldier who marches wherever the pope points you.

      "I am all ears."

      You're all earplugs.

      Delete
    2. Steve,
      "It doesn't say they were added by baptism. Rather, it says they were baptized after believing the Gospel. By itself, baptism doesn't add them to the church. You omit their faith, in response to the Gospel.
      "

      No Steve I do not omit faith as it is a prerequisite for adult Baptism. Still, I don't see the words," Faith" or "Believe" there in the text. I do see repent and be Baptized though. So, please don't accuse me of not sticking to what Acts 2:37 actually says.

      " the fact that baptism is a membership rite doesn't imply baptismal regeneration"

      Please read what Jesus said to Nicodemus.

      You go on,
      "offer no exegetical argument to warrant your baptismal interpretation" for Titis 3:5.

      What do the words say Steve?

      You then say,
      "Spirit-baptism, not water-baptism."

      Now who is offering no exegetical arguments? Baptism means water Baptism. Water= an aqueous solution of 2 parts of Hydrogen to 1 part Oxygen.

      You say, "Paul doesn't identify the Jerusalem from above as "The Church."

      No? What is he speaking of then?

      You then challenge my assertion that Mary is the archetype of the Church. Earlier I said Mary predated the Church. She stands at the junction where the OT Church and the NT Church meet. She is the Daughter of Zion.

      In response to what I said about Rev 12 you brayed,
      "You've already been corrected on that. israel was the genealogical source of the Messiah"

      No, I have not been "corrected on that", Steve.

      Then you deny that the Bible says Mary is the Ark. Thank you.

      Go back and read Luke's account of Mary being "overshadowed". Notice the comparison between Mary's visit to Elizabeth and the 2nd Samuel 6. "Anaphosein" or "trumpet blast" is used to describe Elizabeth's greeting just as a trumpet blast greeted the Ark.
      Notice how both David and baby John the Baptist danced ( skirtan ) before the Ark. Notice how Mary and the Ark were both greeted with, "How can the Ar of the Lord/Mother of my Lord come to me?" ,
      Notice that both Mary and the Ark sojourned 3 months in their places bring fruitfulness to the inhabitants.
      Do you just happen to think, Steve, St. Luke had a reason for drawing on Ark imagery?

      You wind up by complimenting me with,
      "You're a good little windup toy soldier who marches wherever the pope points you."

      Thank you for noticing. I do try to take Christ's commission to Peter and his successors seriously.

      As for the ears business, you might try taking the cotton out of yours, putting it in your mouth, and listening to what your betters have to say. You might learn something.

      Delete
    3. It says they received his word. That denotes receptive belief in his message. Is that too subtle for you?

      You also fail to grasp the elementary fact that John, Paul, and other Bible writers frequently use aqueous metaphors. Moreover, the Gospel of John contains many theological metaphors.

      Therefore, just quoting a word that says "washing" or "water" does not prove water baptism. You need to defend your assumption that it's not figurative language.

      Likewise, I don't need to reinvent the wheel for an ignoramus like you. The category of Spirit-baptism in Pauline theology has been extensively documented by scholars like Gordon Fee in God's Empowering Presence.

      In Gal 4, Paul is referring to the eschatological Jerusalem.

      Shekinah terminology is hardly confined to the ark. It's used for the Transfiguration, for the tabernacle generally, and other OT theophanies.

      The "Ar" of the Lord? Where does Luke say that?

      Delete
    4. "Now who is offering no exegetical arguments? Baptism means water Baptism. Water= an aqueous solution of 2 parts of Hydrogen to 1 part Oxygen."

      Seriously?

      Unless the spirit is soluble in water, what makes the water in water baptism an aqueous solution?

      Delete
  9. Steve,
    One more shot: You say Mary didn't consent or give her fiat. That is because of your faulty Calvinistic anthropology that sees people as pawns, puppets or toys in the hands of a capricious little god. Mr. Calvin went so far to say some men were created for destruction, to be vessels of wrath. Think about that. Your whole system is built upon an unbiblcal and preposterous theory. Men are like characters in a book that have no real existence of their own outside the pages of the book.

    So, Gabriel came to tell Mary she was to be an incubator, nothing more. She wasn't going to be a mother as that implies Mary was human with a will and a mind.
    You echo Luther's absurd assertion that Mary had no more role in the redemption than the wood of the cross.


    You and Luther fail to realized God deals with human beings as human beings. He expects us to know, consent and willingly cooperate.
    Look, God gave the Promised Land to the children of Israel as a free gift, yes? Yet they had to fight awfully hard to take it over. As a matter of fact, the OT shows that they had to fight to retain it against the Philistines and other pagan nations for their entire history. They had to work for the free gift according to the Bible.

    That principle applies to Mary, to you and to me. Your problem is you follow systematic theology rather than revelation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve,
      It was not a 'done deal" or Gabriel would have said, "The Holy Spirit has already overshadowed you and you have already concieved in your womb".

      And no, St. Paul did not say some men were created TO Be vessels of wrath.

      Delete
    2. God didn't send Gabriel to open negotiations with Mary. Rather, this is an announcement of what will happen. This is what God is going to do with her. It gives her advance notice. What to expect.

      Delete
    3. Actually, Paul uses the creative metaphor of potter making pots to serve different purposes.

      Delete
    4. Steve,
      I think you said Romans 8 spoke of "vessels of wrath". It is actually Romans 9 but lets not quibble over that or one another's minor spelling mistakes. We don't want to be picayunish now, do we?
      The Potter does indeed make different vessels for different degrees of service. But the Potter. a.k.a. God, does NOT make any individual human being with the sole intention of sending them to hell to show His justice if that is what you are hinting at. ( You are a Calvinist, aren't you? )
      It is blasphemous to say He does.

      Delete
    5. "One more shot: You say Mary didn't consent or give her fiat. That is because of your faulty Calvinistic anthropology that sees people as pawns, puppets or toys in the hands of a capricious little god."

      No, I say that because of what the text actually says. Gabriel informs Mary of a done deal.

      "Mr. Calvin went so far to say some men were created for destruction, to be vessels of wrath. Think about that. Your whole system is built upon an unbiblcal and preposterous theory."

      Actually, that's what St. Paul says in Rom 9.

      Delete
    6. Calvinism doesn't say God makes the reprobate for the sole intention of damning them.

      Moreover, although you may deny that in Rom 9, God makes the reprobate vessels prepared for destruction, you haven't justified your denial exegetically.

      Delete
    7. God's plan for redemption, in the works for centuries, didn't teeter in the balance, awaiting Mary's approval or veto. Lk 1:38 is an expression of pious submission to the will of God. The conception and birth of Jesus will happen anyway. Everyone must submit to God's will. Some submit willingly, some grudgingly, some unwillingly. Mary's fidelity contrasts with Zechariah's incredulity. Yet his incredulity was no barrier to the conception and birth of John the Baptist.

      Delete
    8. Steve,

      "Calvinism doesn't say God makes the reprobate for the sole intention of damning them. "
      Most modern Calvinists do not say such rubbish. Still, compatibilism or whatever system they use to get around it really don't save them though.
      I would have to walk away from my computer to get the book that quotes Calvin as saying such though. Maybe later.

      Romans 9 does not say God makes human beings as vessels of wrath IF by vessels of wrath you mean what Calvin meant. ( By Golly I am going to get you those quotes after I have had my coffee. )

      Finally, your view if Mary's consent flies in the face of the Father's who actually saw Gabriel as a matchmaker bringing a wedding proposal from the already existing Second Person of the Trinity or Holy Ghost. All the angels stood waiting for her answer.
      Thanks Steve but I will stick with the Fathers. You go with Luther, okay. You guys see Mary as a stump of wood being talked at by the angel.

      Delete
    9. Since you're so obtuse, let's take you by the hand and walk you through the argument, step by step.

      Take the case of Pilate. Let's say he's reprobate. God didn't reprobate him for the sole purpose of damning him. Rather, he serves a historical purpose. He's instrumental in effecting one element of God's plan.

      Same could be said for Cyrus, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Caiaphas, &c.

      So, no, God doesn't reprobate them with the sole intent of damning them. Rather, they have an appointed role to play in God's plan. That's before they get to hell.

      "…flies in the face of the Father's who actually saw Gabriel as a matchmaker bringing a wedding proposal from the already existing Second Person of the Trinity or Holy Ghost."

      So Mary's a bigamist? She has two husbands: the Son and the Holy Spirit?

      "All the angels stood waiting for her answer."

      So your theology is based on Harlequin romances and Disney princesses.

      "Thanks Steve but I will stick with the Fathers."

      You're directly answerable to God for what you believe. You don't' have the right to subcontract that out to second parties.

      "You go with Luther, okay."

      I'm not Lutheran.

      "You guys see Mary as a stump of wood being talked at by the angel."

      Mary disowns you. You dishonor Mary.

      Delete
    10. @guy fawkes

      "Most modern Calvinists do not say such rubbish."

      Assertion in search of an argument.

      "Still, compatibilism or whatever system they use to get around it really don't save them though."

      Assertion in search of an argument.

      "I would have to walk away from my computer to get the book that quotes Calvin as saying such though. Maybe later. Romans 9 does not say God makes human beings as vessels of wrath IF by vessels of wrath you mean what Calvin meant. ( By Golly I am going to get you those quotes after I have had my coffee.)"

      Calvin isn't the end-all and be-all of Calvinism or Reformed theology.

      That's a problem with debating papists: they often think it boils down to arguments from authority.

      "Finally, your view if Mary's consent flies in the face of the Father's who actually saw Gabriel as a matchmaker bringing a wedding proposal from the already existing Second Person of the Trinity or Holy Ghost. All the angels stood waiting for her answer."

      Gabriel was a "matchmaker"? Gabriel brought a "wedding proposal" from the Son of God? "All the angels stood waiting for her answer"?

      Well, I suppose one can't say you lack imagination! At least not when it comes to reading into Scripture what's not in Scripture.

      "Thanks Steve but I will stick with the Fathers."

      Why assume the Fathers have any authority here?

      It's a shame you don't stick with God and the Scriptures.

      "You go with Luther, okay."

      Surprisingly many modern Catholic scholars speak highly of Luther. Where does that leave you? At odds with these Catholic scholars?

      "You guys see Mary as a stump of wood being talked at by the angel."

      Of course, this is coming from the same person (i.e. you, since you're probably too slow to figure it out) who suggested Mary is both "the mother of God" as well as God's wife.

      Delete
  10. @guy fawkes

    Your comments are (unintentionally) amusing. You come off like a little chihuahua spoiling for a fight with a dog several times your size. Must be all the pent-up Latin machismo. But your bark is worse than your bite.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rocking,
    Go back to the beginning of the comments and read them all in sequence.
    I started off like a pussy cat and ratcheted up incrementally only in response to the snottiness dealt me.
    By the way, are the the Big Dog? As we are talking matters of Faith, we should be coming from a scriptural place. So far you have only given kennel references.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @guy fawkes

      "Rocking, Go back to the beginning of the comments and read them all in sequence. I started off like a pussy cat and ratcheted up incrementally only in response to the snottiness dealt me. By the way, are the the Big Dog? As we are talking matters of Faith, we should be coming from a scriptural place. So far you have only given kennel references."

      1. I'll ignore your tendentious grasp of the events since it's oddly enough a minor issue in light of your more serious errors.

      2. You consistently evince a poor grasp of the English language in your comments (e.g. misspellings, grammatical mistakes, formatting problems). Normally it's not necessarily a big deal. Perhaps English isn't your native language. But in your case, your limited grasp of English could explain (at least in part) why you have such difficulties tracking your own arguments in this thread, why you can't follow what others are clearly and reasonably explaining to you, and so on.

      When coupled with your apparent Latin machismo it's at best an exercise in comedy and worse a bit futile. You're never going to understand the other side's arguments and logic. Instead you're just going to keep attempting to yell over them. It's sort of like the foreigner who thinks if he just yells more loudly then the native speaker will finally understand what he's saying.

      Anyway, I'd suggest Triablogue stop wasting their time with you.

      Delete
    2. Rocking,
      Then just scroll past me. Or actually engage the argument if you can endure the misspellings, formatting problems and grammatical mistakes. Surely someone with your vast knowledge of the Bible ( you have yet to quote just once ) should be able to make your case sufficiently well instead of just pouting and insulting me in grammatically correct and nicely formatted Ingrish.
      PS I am not a Latino so my machismo is not Latin.

      Delete
    3. @guy fawkes

      "Or actually engage the argument if you can endure the misspellings, formatting problems and grammatical mistakes."

      You make several assumptions. You've presented a string of assertions. But attempts to see an actual "argument" from you would be cause for eye strain.

      "Surely someone with your vast knowledge of the Bible ( you have yet to quote just once )"

      Indeed that's part of your problem: Catholic proof-texting.

      "should be able to make your case sufficiently well instead of just pouting and insulting me in grammatically correct and nicely formatted Ingrish."

      No pouting. No insults. Just the facts. Anyone can simply scroll up and see how many spelling and grammatical mistakes you've made, etc.

      "PS I am not a Latino so my machismo is not Latin."

      I never said you were Latino. There's a distinction between Latin and Latino (e.g. most residents of the Iberian peninsula speak a Latin language). That said, I wouldn't expect you to grasp subtle distinctions.

      But at least I appreciate you owning up to your machismo! That's a start. :-)

      Delete
    4. RH,
      "I never said you were Latino. There's a distinction between Latin and Latino (e.g. most residents of the Iberian peninsula speak a Latin language). That said, I wouldn't expect you to grasp subtle distinctions."

      I just might grasp some of those subtle distinctions as I live and am writing to you from one of those countries. And I speak the lingo. But I have to run off to work now so I will leave you ponder the subtle distinctions between Latin, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, etc. etc.

      Delete
    5. @guy fawkes

      "I just might grasp some of those subtle distinctions as I live and am writing to you from one of those countries. And I speak the lingo."

      This is amusing. Just because someone lives in a particular country and speaks its predominant language has no bearing on whether such a person can grasp subtle distinctions in language. You could be a stupid, Portugese-speaking person who lives in Lisbon but can't appreciate that which is literary, for example.

      Delete
  12. Steve,
    The Serpent of Gen 3:15 and the Dragon of Rev 12 are one and the same. The man child/offspring too. And the Woman.

    Israel was not at enmity with the Serpent. Revelation is all about God's judgment on apostsate Israel in order to reveal the heavenly Jerusalem, the Church.

    Christ could have come and redeemed us in one day. He could have come as an adult even He chose not to. He lived 30 years before going public and then spent 3 years setting up His Church so it could continue His teachings and mission down through time.
    Election is in that Church.The Church is not just a collection of the saved. Salvation is in the Church. Baptism is the doorway into that Church.
    Mary is the mother or the Church. She is also a member of the Church. And as she predated the Church and contains all of the Church's prerogatives within herself, she is the archetype of the Church too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "stump of wood" ... good metaphor, as you have turned a living human being into an idol.

      Delete
    2. Fawkes,

      i) You don't know how to read. There's a twofold distinction in Gen 3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed."

      Israel doesn't have to be at enmity with the Serpent. The conflict, rather, is between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed. That plays out in the Pentateuch–between the people of God and the enemies of God's people.

      ii) To say Revelation is all about God's judgment of apostate Israel is a revealing window into your anti-Semitism. It's also a grossly simplistic analysis of the book. "Israel" is not the only villain, or even the primary villain, in Revelation.

      iii) You then make lots of groundless assertions about Roman Catholicism. And a Mormon could make groundless assertions about the LDS church. You have the mindset of a cult-member.

      Delete
    3. Steve,

      "And I will put enmity
      between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring[a] and hers;
      he will crush[b] your head,
      and you will strike his heel.”

      Despite what the text clearly says, you assert, "The conflict, rather, is between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed."

      You accuse me of not being able to read. do you? Yet you missed the " I will put enmity
      between you and the woman," stuff.
      The enmity is against the Serpent and the Woman and their respective seed.

      As for my anti-Semitism, how do you know if I am not a completed Jew? You have already "accused" me of being a Latino. Do you have something against Hispanic-Americans?
      I did say not Israel is the "only villain" in Revelation. But I would love to discuss Revelation in light of OT imagery with you. May I refer you to Calvinist David Chilton's work on the destruction of the temple? The book is called, "Days of Vengeance".

      Your gratuitous insults reveal I have you up a tree.

      Delete
    4. "The Serpent of Gen 3:15 and the Dragon of Rev 12 are one and the same. The man child/offspring too. And the Woman."

      So you keep asserting sans argumentation.

      I suppose your modus operandi is to keep repeating yourself until you're blue in the face?

      "Israel was not at enmity with the Serpent. Revelation is all about God's judgment on apostsate Israel in order to reveal the heavenly Jerusalem, the Church."

      Whether or not this is true, you don't bother to make an argument. Just a few more assertions as if these assertions suffice to make your point.

      "Christ could have come and redeemed us in one day. He could have come as an adult even He chose not to."

      The Catholic church could have repented of their heresies in one day. The Catholic church could cleaned their own house even though they chose not to.

      Sure, we can play what if games all day long.

      "He lived 30 years before going public and then spent 3 years setting up His Church so it could continue His teachings and mission down through time."

      Too bad "His Church" most likely doesn't include too many of the Roman Catholic churches today. (Hey, if you can make assertions, then so can I!)

      "Election is in that Church. The Church is not just a collection of the saved. Salvation is in the Church. Baptism is the doorway into that Church."

      More assertions without arguments. Is this getting tiresome? Now you know how many people feel about your comments!

      "Mary is the mother or the Church."

      On the plus side, I guess it's good to know she can't be both.

      "She is also a member of the Church. And as she predated the Church and contains all of the Church's prerogatives within herself, she is the archetype of the Church too."

      Several more hackneyed Catholic speculations about Mary.

      Delete
    5. Guy:

      You compound your illiteracy. As I just told you, it's a twofold comparison. Not just between the woman and the serpent, but their respective seeds. And that enmity is already on display in the rest of Pentateuchal history.

      Moreover, the woman in Gen 3:15 is Eve, not Mary.

      You're a completed anti-Semite.

      You're also getting your wires crossed. I said nothing about you being Latino. Are you that confused because your Catholic, or are you Catholic because you're that confused?

      "May I refer you to Calvinist David Chilton's work on the destruction of the temple?"

      Chilton was not a NT scholar. He was hired by Gary North because he had a catchy prose style. He was a foil for Ron Sider.

      Delete
    6. @guy fawkes

      "As for my anti-Semitism, how do you know if I am not a completed Jew?"

      For one thing, you evidently make a distinction between "a completed Jew" and I guess a regular "Jew."

      "You have already 'accused' me of being a Latino. Do you have something against Hispanic-Americans?"

      First off, Steve said no such thing. You lack basic reading comprehension.

      Second, I suppose you're alluding to me. But I never "accused" you of being "Latino." I said you appeared to have some pent-up Latin machismo. As I pointed out, there's a distinction between Latin and Latino. See a previous comment I made.

      Are you suggesting racism on my part? If so, how can I be racist when I didn't make this about race (e.g. identifying your race/ethnicity)? Do you think if someone is said to be like a Latin lover then it's racism?

      I did say you're deficient in English. But I didn't say why I think you're deficient in English. Let alone that you're deficient in English due to your race/ethnicity. For all I know you could be deficient in English because you lack the requisite intelligence to grasp or use it. If you prefer that, that's fine by me.

      "Your gratuitous insults reveal I have you up a tree."

      It's not as if you lack insults.

      More like you've been barking up the wrong tree this entire time.

      Delete
    7. Rocking&Mocking,
      As you are more interested in peripheral stuff like spelling and sassing about personalities rather than arguing principles, I shall henceforth scroll past your pissy and prissy comments.
      Thanks for the offer of a food fight but not interested. Adios

      Delete
    8. @gal fawkes

      Remember, remember the third of November:
      Catholic reason goes rot.
      Every season when a Catholic can't reason
      Sure is a heckuva lot!

      Guy Fawkes was destined to lose,
      But the lesson he learned we can muse:
      Hung and slaughtered,
      Drawn and quartered,
      Catholics are easy to bruise!

      t+, bobo!

      Delete
    9. guy fawkes

      "...I have you up a tree."

      You're barking up the wrong tree.

      Delete
  13. Steve,
    Okay, you want my spin on the vessels of wrath from Romans 9:22.

    The passage does say God was long suffering and endured those vessels before administering His wrath. We can conclude then that they made themselves worthy of God's displeasure. God would be rather silly to make people for hell and then wring His hands waiting for them to repent, wouldn't he?
    Because the Potter makes some vessels for noble and others for ignoble purposes can be seen like the "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" or even Jesus' " Unless you hate your mother and father..." statement. God doesn't hate any unborn child and Jesus doesn't condone hating our parents. This is just a way the Bible shows degrees of comparison.


    As for my quotes on Calvin's understanding, I will refer you to pages 460-2 of Robert Sungenis' "Not By Faith Alone". Any Catholic bookstore or university library should have it. Just walk in and peruse those pages along with their footnotes. If you won't accept my Catholic sources, google it. I'm sure there are plenty of Arminian sites to give you all of Calvin's horrendous views on this passage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The passage does say God was long suffering and endured those vessels before administering His wrath. We can conclude then that they made themselves worthy of God's displeasure."

      Why should we conclude that they made themselves worthy of God's displeasure when you haven't begun to show that from the text? You just make stuff up based on what you want to believe or disbelieve.

      "God would be rather silly to make people for hell and then wring His hands waiting for them to repent, wouldn't he?"

      God isn't wringing his hands waiting for them to repent. Rather, he withholds immediate retribution because their historical existence serves a purpose–as Paul describes.

      "God doesn't hate any unborn child and Jesus doesn't condone hating our parents. This is just a way the Bible shows degrees of comparison."

      In Romans, it's means divine election and reprobation.

      Why would I read a secondary Catholic source quote-mining Calvin?

      Moreover, why do you labor under the illusion that I depend on Calvin's exegesis? What about a modern Reformed commentary on Romans like Tom Schreiner's?

      Delete
    2. @guy fawkes

      "As for my quotes on Calvin's understanding, I will refer you to pages 460-2 of Robert Sungenis' 'Not By Faith Alone'."

      Your academic integrity and objectivity to the facts is utterly laudable! /sarcasm

      Delete
  14. John Bugay,

    An idol? How about, "Klotz, stock und stein". ( Pardon any bad German. I would have to wake up my wife for the correct spelling ).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @guy fawkes

      "An idol? How about, 'Klotz, stock und stein'. ( Pardon any bad German. I would have to wake up my wife for the correct spelling )."

      You might try mastering English first.

      Delete
    2. Have you noticed (a) that the recent pope John Paul II used the "Calvinistic" predestination regarding Mary, and (b) that Gen 3:15 was not really Mary, (it can only have been Eve) -- but a foreshadowing?

      http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

      PART I - MARY IN THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST

      1. Full of Grace

      7. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3). These words of the Letter to the Ephesians reveal the eternal design of God the Father, his plan of man's salvation in Christ. It is a universal plan, which concerns all men and women created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen. 1:26). Just as all are included in the creative work of God "in the beginning," so all are eternally included in the divine plan of salvation, which is to be completely revealed, in the "fullness of time," with the final coming of Christ. In fact, the God who is the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"-these are the next words of the same Letter-"chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:4-7).

      The divine plan of salvation-which was fully revealed to us with the coming of Christ-is eternal. And according to the teaching contained in the Letter just quoted and in other Pauline Letters (cf. Col. 1:12- 14; Rom. 3:24; Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:18-29), it is also eternally linked to Christ. It includes everyone, but it reserves a special place for the "woman" who is the Mother of him to whom the Father has entrusted the work of salvation.19 As the Second Vatican Council says, "she is already prophetically foreshadowed in that promise made to our first parents after their fall into sin"-according to the Book of Genesis (cf. 3:15). "Likewise she is the Virgin who is to conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called Emmanuel"- according to the words of Isaiah (cf. 7:14).20 In this way the Old Testament prepares that "fullness of time" when God "sent forth his Son, born of woman...so that we might receive adoption as sons." The coming into the world of the Son of God is an event recorded in the first chapters of the Gospels according to Luke and Matthew.


      Steve is right: Mary did not have a choice.

      Delete
    3. John Bugay,
      Calvin's theory of predestination? Are you even aware of the dispute between the Dominicans and the Franciscans on the predestination of Christ? Later Franciscans developed the argument further to include Mary. This was used by Pius IX in his definition.
      Calvin's theory, indeed!

      As for Mary not having a choice, are you implying God raped her? God not only violated a ( consecrated ) Virgin but one espoused to another man.
      Hmmmmmmmmmm?

      Delete
    4. Remember you are the one who brought up rape. And remember, we Protestants consider that nothing important happened in church history between the New Testament and 1517.

      Delete
    5. Guy - "As for Mary not having a choice, are you implying God raped her? God not only violated a ( consecrated ) Virgin but one espoused to another man."

      Did God violate Moses or somehow force Moses to do something against his will? It's interesting how much emphasis Catholics place on Mary's "yes" and how little emphasis they place on any other individual's "yes" to God.

      God, being God, knew how Mary would respond. So in that sense Mary had no choice in God's plan because the plan of God was established ahead of time based on His foreknowledge. Could Mary have said "no"? How do you know?

      The game Catholics like to play is to construct a hypothetical case where Mary denies God's "request" in order to make God beholden to Mary, thus elevating Mary to a position of equality with the members of the Trinity. If Mary is simultaneously the daughter of the first person of the Trinity, the mother of the second person of the Trinity and the spouse of the Third person of the Trinity, how is she also not co-equal with the members of Trinity?

      In that sense, Mariolatry is perfectly consistent with the premise that Mary could have said "no".

      Delete
    6. I would also ask this question: If indeed Mary was a "consecrated virgin", what business did she have in agreeing to marry Joseph in the first place. That seems an odd decision for someone who allegedly had decided to remain chaste for life. Mary and Joseph were already betrothed by the time the angel announced that she was to be the Mother of Jesus. Did Mary "foreknow" God's plan and intentionally deceive Joseph?

      Delete
    7. @guy fawkes

      "Calvin's theory of predestination? Are you even aware of the dispute between the Dominicans and the Franciscans on the predestination of Christ? Later Franciscans developed the argument further to include Mary. This was used by Pius IX in his definition.
      Calvin's theory, indeed!"

      Another one of your problems: you keep taking cues from various authorities rather than taking cues from God's word.

      "As for Mary not having a choice, are you implying God raped her? God not only violated a ( consecrated ) Virgin but one espoused to another man."

      Ironically you're the one who has perverse views about Mary (e.g. suggesting she's both the mother of God as well as God's wife).

      Delete
    8. guy fawkes

"As for Mary not having a choice, are you implying God raped her? God not only violated a ( consecrated ) Virgin but one espoused to another man."

      i) To say she was a consecrated virgin begs the question.

      ii) You can't make the text say something it doesn't say by raising objections extraneous to what it actually says.

      iii) You're assuming a libertarian definition of "consent," which is philosophically tendentious.

      iv) You act as if the virginal conception involves God physically copulating with a woman. The virginal conception involves no physical violence or force.

      In fact, Mary wouldn't even be aware of her initial pregnancy unless God told her.

      Delete
    9. Steve the Cary Grant lookalike,
      "in fact, Mary wouldn't even be aware of her initial pregnancy unless God told her."

      WOW Steve! Why did God even bother to tell her? In your monergistic system, wouldn't it have been cool to just surprise her? Everything was decided in an eternal decree in eternity past anyway, wasn't it?

      Delete
    10. @guy fawkes

      "WOW Steve! Why did God even bother to tell her? In your monergistic system, wouldn't it have been cool to just surprise her? Everything was decided in an eternal decree in eternity past anyway, wasn't it?"

      Another problem: guy fawkes doesn't actually bother to familiarize himself with Reformed theology. Instead, he's operating work with bad stereotypes and false assumptions.

      Ironically this is the same with his Catholicism. He doesn't bother to acquaint himself with what modern Catholic scholars actually say. Rather he simply accepts what's spoon fed him through pop Catholic authors like Robert Sungenis (mentioned earlier).

      Not to mention Catholics like Sungenis were evangelicals who swam the Tiber. As a friend has said, it's striking how many evangelical imports into Catholicism help keep Catholic apologetics afloat.

      Delete
  15. Steve,

    "You compound your illiteracy. As I just told you, it's a twofold comparison. Not just between the woman and the serpent, but their respective seeds."

    Don't compound your ignorance with dishonesty. I ( not you ) brought out the twofold enmity between the Woman and her seed vs the Serpent and his seed.

    You all but denied the enmity between the Woman and the Serpent when you said, ""The conflict, rather, is between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed." Do you deny writing this, Steve?

    If you want to retract, that is fine with me. But don't call me names and fib to cover up what you actually said. Play the Christian. Temper your speech with a little charity and stop the snottiness ( if you can ).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guy Fawkes -- couple of things:

      It's hard to take you seriously. Remember:

      1. You have just brought up "rape".

      2. You have taken the pseudonym of a would-be terrorist, a name that English-speaking Protestants hold in infamy.

      3. You have failed to discuss the substantial matter in the initial post.

      4. You have failed to stick to a point (any real point).

      5. You have failed to provide any substantial evidence for the non-points you are making. (Your earliest comments here were assertions about a supposed magical conversation bearing news of a "deal" between Mary and Scotus).

      6. You are basically following a 16th century apologetic that was flawed from the start with fundamental untruths and has, from our perspective, gone downhill from there.

      If you want to have a discussion in good faith, we're all for that. For starters, why don't you tell us who you really are. Someone has already located your IP address. With that, much of the effect you seem to want to create with your pseudonym is gone.


      If you check our board rules, you'll note that threads become locked after 5 days. That is a mercy that we grant to people like you. So if you don't see your posts show up here shortly, don't go whining that we banned you.

      Delete
    2. Guy,

      God told her so that she'd understand why she became pregnant.

      Also, Calvinism is not a "monergistic system." For instance, regeneration is monergistic, but sanctification is not.

      Do you imagine you do any credit to Catholicism by your ignorance of the positions you presume to attack? What makes you think ignorant Catholic apologists advance the cause of Catholicism? Has it every occurred to you that you may be doing more harm than good? You're an embarrassment to Catholicism. A bull in the china shop.

      Delete
  16. Boys,

    Just so you know, Calvinist David Chilton supports my reading of the Woman of Rev 12.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Bugay,
      Is RockingwithHawking a real name? Is TurretinFan?
      I don't care if you ban me or not. You are the one who took the discussion off onto a tangent with your "Big Momma" slur. I have merely been responded to what has been put out. I would love to discuss your erroneous views on grace but you guys would rather trash Mary and call me names.
      I prefer to use my oh-so-cool pen name. ( You just now woke up to the fact I was using a fictitious name? ) If you say it is against your blog rules, ban me and then you guys can talk to each other and pat each other on the back. I am happy to pick up my marbles and go elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. @guy fawkes

      "Just so you know, Calvinist David Chilton supports my reading of the Woman of Rev 12."

      As Steve already pointed out to you, Chilton isn't an NT scholar. (Besides other issues.)

      "Is RockingwithHawking a real name?"

      Given the gunpowder plot, would Guy Fawkes make good bedfellows with Muslim jihadis?

      "I don't care if you ban me or not."

      Here's hoping! :-)

      Although regrettably it sounds like you're already gearing up to head for the nearest exit of your own volition. It looks like you'll leave the party before Triablogue can ban you. Pity.

      "You are the one who took the discussion off onto a tangent with your 'Big Momma' slur."

      Let's say this is true for the moment. If so, then you didn't have to respond in kind, but you did. So it's not as if your hands are clean.

      "I have merely been responded to what has been put out."

      Sure, that's all you've "merely" done. Whatever you say. *rolls eyes*

      "I would love to discuss your erroneous views on grace but you guys would rather trash Mary and call me names."

      And we'd love to discuss your erroneous views on Christianity and the Bible, but it looks like you're already preparing your escape plan.

      Of course, the truth is you've been shot to pieces one too many times, but don't want to admit it, and instead you want to try to walk away with some of your pride intact - at least as intact as you can scrounge up at this point. So now you're trying to high tail it out of Dodge before you're totally tar and feathered.

      "I prefer to use my oh-so-cool pen name."

      Sorry to disappoint. It looks like we're instead going to have a Guy Fawkes Night festival - bonfires, burnt effigies, and songs!

      "If you say it is against your blog rules, ban me and then you guys can talk to each other and pat each other on the back. I am happy to pick up my marbles and go elsewhere."

      No need to be a sore loser! And sorry we made you lose your marbles.

      Delete
  17. "If you want to have a discussion in good faith, we're all for that."

    Really? Go back and read the snottiness vomited out by you three. "A discussion in good faith" indeed. Ha!
    Adios

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @guy fawkes

      "Really? Go back and read the snottiness vomited out by you three. 'A discussion in good faith' indeed. Ha!"

      It's not as if you've been a very pleasant person here. You've said just as much if not worse.

      Your metaphors are a bit mixed. Snot and vomit don't exactly go together given one tends to come from the nostrils whereas the other tends to come from the mouth.

      Delete
  18. Steve,
    Why are you hiding behind a picture of Cary Grant? Blog rules demand you post your own mug shot. What's with the pistol? Are you a terrorist?
    Ha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @guy fawkes

      "Are you a terrorist?"

      Says Guy Fawkes.

      Delete
  19. It's kind of disappointing that the comments barely have anything to do with Aquinas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you could always try to right the wrongs...

      Delete
    2. Yeah geofrobinson,
      Especially as John Bugay doesn't seem to understand why sanctifying grace is an accident. He also writes,
      "So here is Aquinas, insisting (contra everything that the prior church had taught) that man’s salvation must be intrinsic to himself, not “extrinsic” – that is, it’s not the indwelling Holy Spirit that provides man’s salvation – but rather, it’s man’s own acts which must make him righteous. "

      No JB, Caritas is a habit. Just as sanctifying grace is. It is the principle of action but it is not action. A Baptized baby is incapable of any meritorious action but is infused with grace.
      JB allso says Aquinas broke with the earlier position of the Church. Really? The Church had previously taught JBFA/an imputation of an alien righteousness? That is not what Augustine said.

      Also, JB thinks Aquinas based his views on the papacy from forged documents. Hardly! The Church Fathers testify to the papacy. So does the Bible. As a matter of fact, the Petrine Office is about the easiest doctrine to prove from the Bible, a lot easier than proving the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. ( An assertion I would relish the chance to argue! )

      Delete
    3. Readers might be interested in seeing how many naked assertions (sans argumentation) they count guy fawkes making here. I count at least five or six.

      Of course, guy fawkes himself notes he's made at least one assertion ("An assertion I would relish the chance to argue"). But as usual, no one's stopping him from making a case his assertions. He just isn't in the habit of doing so, as people can witness in this thread.

      Delete
  20. Rockinwithhockin,
    Of course Chilton is not a scholar! How could he be? He side with the Catholics on Rev 12. That is enuff to disqualify anyone.
    ( Enuff is intentionally misspelled. Thanks for the correction anyway. )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @guy fawkes

      "Of course Chilton is not a scholar!"

      Yet another example of guy fawkes poor reading comprehension. I never said Chilton wasn't a scholar. Rather I said he wasn't a New Testament scholar, which would be relevant to the interpretation of Revelation (which was the context).

      "How could he be? He side with the Catholics on Rev 12. That is enuff to disqualify anyone."

      No, just you. :-)

      Speaking of which, another problem is your not infrequent inference-observation confusions.

      "( Enuff is intentionally misspelled. Thanks for the correction anyway. )"

      Look on the bright side: it's the least of your blunders given your deficiencies in reading comprehension, plethora of logical fallacies, and so on! :-)

      Unfortunately, even guy fawkes' attempts at humor in this thread keep falling flat, I'm afraid. If he can't be right, then at least he could try to be humorous.

      Delete
  21. EA,

    Good question.
    If Mary were intending to have relations with Joseph, she would not have used the present simple tense ( or the equivalent of in the Biblical language ). "I don't smoke" shows a habit.
    By the way, there were marriages that were never intended to be consummated.
    Would love to chat about how Joseph's case supports my argument on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary but is looks like our time together will be drawing to a close due to my violation of official blog protocol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "By the way, there were marriages that were never intended to be consummated."

      Yet another assertion without the benefit of an argument. It might be interesting to simply search the word "assertion" in this thread and see how many times people (including me) have thought guy fawkes has made these assertions. Quite a few!

      Of course, the next question would be to ask whether guy fawkes truly is making assertions sans argumentation, or whether we're mistakenly crying foul. I'll leave that up to each reader to determine.

      "Would love to chat about how Joseph's case supports my argument on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary but is looks like our time together will be drawing to a close due to my violation of official blog protocol."

      For better or for worse, Triablogue doesn't seem to have banned guy fawkes yet.

      It seems rather guy fawkes is attempting to excuse himself from having to comment further. He's trying to make a hasty retreat. To leave with some of his pride still intact. (Which I don't necessarily blame him for. If one has been this soundly beaten as guy fawkes has been here, it might be worth considering the same!)

      However, guy fawkes' exit strategy is a bit strained though. Either stay or leave. Just make a decision. Don't keep wavering back and forth.

      Delete
  22. As an aside, what's funny is how many times guy fawkes has put his foot in his mouth in this thread. His very own comments often discredit his own position(s).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Guy,

    You're answering a different than the one I asked. This was the question I asked:

    If Mary was a "consecrated virgin", what business did she have in agreeing to marry Joseph in the first place?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been a day or two, and it doesn't look like guy fawkes is coming back.

      Delete
  24. Mr. Bugay,
    I am curious as to what you think of the whole controversy surrounding Pope Francis saying that the phrase in Lord's Prayer "lead us not into temptation" should be changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trent, well, he's changing the meaning of it, from what it really says, to what he wants it to say, so there's that. The RCC has already changed the verbiage of "the Mass" several times, so maybe only the older people will really notice it. I think the traditionalists will cringe. One more strike of the wedge.

      Delete