Pages

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Dyn-O-Mite!!!

While hanging in the chow line, JJ has seen fit to respond to Steve and me in the last rejoinder to him.

I'm bringing a portion of that to the main page. Hopefully, Steve will respond here to the rest of what JJ wrote as well, so readers will likely find more below in the combox. I'll be out of town for several days, so I may not be able to return here until into next week. (Any respo ses to anybody else in any other arena will have to wait as well).

To begin, I responded to a portion of JJ's reply to Steve as follows:


The bishops define who is in unity and communion. The unity is manifest in the shared Eucharist.

Oh, okay. Earlier you said that those who take the Eucharist are in a state of grace. So, when an abortionist like John Kerry takes the Eucharist, he's in a state of grace. Yet murder is a mortal sin. That's Catholic unity for you.


Nonsense. I don't ask permission from the Magisterium before buying a bible.


You can't interpret it w/o the Magisterium. Try to follow along.

But fallible oral communication that was informed by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Where was the Roman Catholic Church that day?

Church office is not dynastic by blood, but by succession. Very similar.

Not the same. Now you're trying to fill in gaps.

Thus the need for some kind of authority, whether it be Trent or tradition.

Trent canonized Wisdom of Solomon. Does your theory of inspiration include pious frauds like Wisdom?

By casting out both you cast away your hermeneutical foundation.

Only if we assume your standard.

The Catholic Church is objectively the one the apostles founded

You've not shown this to be true.

but no book is objectively inspired by God. All Scripture is inspired.

1) You assume apriori that 1Tim and 2Tim are inspired.

1. Pauline authorship would select for this, or do you believe that Apostolic authorship doesn't select for canonicity?

2) You assume Paul isn't quoting some other now lost writing.

What's your alternative?

3) You assume Paul wrote it.

1. No we've argued for Pauline authorship on the blog before.
2. Interestingly Cardinal Dulles has problems with Pauline authorship.

You've just shown your epistemological foundation is viciously regressive. What you regard as inspired cannot have the objective foundation as the historical fact that the apostles founded the Catholic Church.

So, tell us again how exactly the Jews muddled along without Trent to define the OT and the Subapostolic Church and Medieval Church muddled along without Trent?

You have never demonstrated that the Apostles founded the Catholic Church. Here's a thought, why don't you document that assertion before making it again.

Oh, and second warning for repeating that assertion numerous times w/o supporting argument. Three is the magic number for a permaban.

JJ responded:
Oh, okay. Earlier you said that those who take the Eucharist are in a state of grace. So, when an abortionist like John Kerry takes the Eucharist, he's in a state of grace. Yet murder is a mortal sin. That's Catholic unity for you."

What's this diversion? You are supposed to be in a state of grace. If people defy the church's rules, it's not an argument against the rules. Do you allow unrepentant sinners to partake? If not, why be such a hypocrite?

"You can't interpret it w/o the Magisterium. Try to follow along."

That's like saying I can't interpret Genesis apart from Paul. The obvious silliness of the accusation is apparent to all.

"Where was the Roman Catholic Church that day?"

Where was the Catholic Church? What sort of a question is that?

"Trent canonized Wisdom of Solomon. Does your theory of inspiration include pious frauds like Wisdom?"

You mean because of the title? I await your proof that the book contains nothing at all passed down from Solomon. (Good luck proving a negative). And that assumes I need to regard the title as part of the inspired text. Or that the title isn't an idiom.

"1. Pauline authorship would select for this, or do you believe that Apostolic authorship doesn't select for canonicity?"

You're the one tasked with manufacturing a rule of faith out of whole cloth. You need to prove whether apostolic authorship makes something inspired, irrespective of what I believe.

"What's your alternative?"

Irrelevant. Unless you can produce every non-extant ancient document to do an exhaustive search in, then you're making a supposition.

"1. No we've argued for Pauline authorship on the blog before."

An argument? Give me a witness at least, if you don't accept tradition as an argument.

"So, tell us again how exactly the Jews muddled along without Trent to define the OT and the Subapostolic Church and Medieval Church muddled along without Trent?"

What's Trent got to do with anything? Before Trent we had the Tradition and customs of the Catholic Church. Same as the Jews had.

If I asked you to prove the OT canon, you'd start talking about what such and such a Jew had to say. That's an appeal to tradition. That's an appeal that assumes a recognisable body of Jews existed who held a unified tradition, and that the person quoted was a member of said group. In short, you'd be forced to fall back to a tradition-based canon.

"You have never demonstrated that the Apostles founded the Catholic Church. Here's a thought, why don't you document that assertion before making it again."

Document a widely known historical fact? There's 2000 years of witnesses and continuity, where would one even begin?

"“The Holy Church.” God is pointed out, and His temple. “For the temple of God is holy,” says the Apostle, “which (temple) are ye.” This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church" - Augustine, on the Creed.

"Oh, and second warning for repeating that assertion numerous times w/o supporting argument. Three is the magic number for a permaban."

Pity you don't apply the criteria to yourselves and perma-ban the whole blog.

Now, here's where we are currently:

What's this diversion? You are supposed to be in a state of grace. If people defy the church's rules, it's not an argument against the rules. Do you allow unrepentant sinners to partake? If not, why be such a hypocrite?

Now you have added a caveat not in your original statement. Earlier you said:

Since you can only receive Eucharist if you are in a state of grace, it hardly seems rational to talk about the Eucharist as primary means for remaining in a state of grace and avoiding dying in mortal sin.

Now you are saying, "You are supposed to be in a state of grace." So, in your case, what we have is the priesthood threatening to without the Eucharist from abortionists like Kerry but failing to do so, yet abortion is murder, therefore a mortal sin. So, according to your defintion of "unity," that would mean that Catholicism unites itself with those in mortal sin. That's Catholic unity for you.

And you've also undercut one of your own objections to Sola Scriptura. If people can't agree on the correct intepretation of the text, it's not an argument against the rule of faith.

That's like saying I can't interpret Genesis apart from Paul. The obvious silliness of the accusation is apparent to all.

You keep offering that retort without an argument. We've aleady answered several times.

In Roman Catholic theology, the Magisterium is the gatekeeper. It defines the canon. You can't begin to know what your Bible contains without the Magisterium to tell you. Not only does it define the canon it claims it and only it has the right to interpret it. Any interpretation outside of their viewpoint is off limits. I guess I have to show you the Council of Trent itself:

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.

Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and [Page 21] twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment.

So, if you've got a problem with our reply, JJ, we're just taking what Trent says seriously. Remember, you're the one who appealed to Trent earlier yourself.

Where was the Catholic Church? What sort of a question is that?

Where was the ROMAN Catholic Church that day? It's a simple question. So, in relation to the Ethiopian Eunuch, where was the Roman Church the day he was converted? What fallible oral traditions were involved?

You're making the claim that such tradition existed, so support your assertions. It begs the question to point to the Apostles, for you've not established that there is such a thing as Apostolic Tradition going from the Apostles to the Roman Magisterium or that there was a Catholic Church. I too affirm there was catholic (small c) church, but I deny that we can get from there to Rome.

And, one more time, nobody here has ever argued that our rule of faith was the rule of faith qua rule in the time of inscripturation. You keep trading on a straw man of what we actually teach.

You mean because of the title? I await your proof that the book contains nothing at all passed down from Solomon. (Good luck proving a negative). And that assumes I need to regard the title as part of the inspired text. Or that the title isn't an idiom.

Nooo, problem.

“Thus the author of Wisd is quite capable of constructing sentences in true period style (12:27; 13:11-15), and his fondness for compound words is almost Aeschylean. His manner at times has the light tough of Greek lyric poetry (17:17-19; 2:6-9; 5:9-13), and occasionally his words fall into an iambic or hexameter rhythm. He employs…Greek philosophical terminology,” D. Winston, the Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Doubleday 1979), 15-16.

“These characteristics, in addition to the author’s many favorite ‘theme words and expressions which recur throughout the work, argue for unity of authorship, and make the hypothesis that Wisd is a translation of a Hebrew original virtually untenable,” ibid. 16-17.

“No consensus has thus far emerged regarding the date of Wisd, and various scholars have place it anywhere between 220 BCE and 50 CE,” ibid 20.

“There are further considerations, however, which point to the reign of Gaius ‘Caligula’ (37:41 CE) as the likeliest setting for Wisd,” ibid. 23.

Yet book intimates Solomonic authorship. This would make Wisdom a pious fraud.

You're the one tasked with manufacturing a rule of faith out of whole cloth. You need to prove whether apostolic authorship makes something inspired, irrespective of what I believe.

Punting back to us won't help you since we've made a case for the canon and the authorship of many books in the archives.

Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox agree that apostolic authorship selects for canonicity. Ergo, I have no such burden of proof to discharge if we share this common ground.

Also, there is a long history of Protestants "proving that apostolic authorship selects for inspiration." Here's a thought, do your homework.

You sidestepped another issue: None other than Cardinal Dulles regards the Pastorals as pseudonymous. You may want to have a word with him.

"What's your alternative?"

Quite relevant. If you can't come up with an alternative, why should we? Again, punting back to us won't help you.

1. No we've argued for Pauline authorship on the blog before."

We've argued Pauline authorship with Jon Curry. You can see plenty in the archives relating to the authorship of several gospels.

It's not that we don't accept "tradition" as an argument. Rather, we deny the infallibility of tradition. External attestation is one source of evidence.

What's Trent got to do with anything? Before Trent we had the Tradition and customs of the Catholic Church. Same as the Jews had

1. See above.
2. You earlier claimed that you knew Luke was inspired by Trent's decree. How can we verify Trent was correct?
3. Your last statement is a case for my rule of faith, not yours.

If I asked you to prove the OT canon, you'd start talking about what such and such a Jew had to say. That's an appeal to tradition. That's an appeal that assumes a recognisable body of Jews existed who held a unified tradition, and that the person quoted was a member of said group. In short, you'd be forced to fall back to a tradition-based canon.

And how is that a problem for us, exactly? It's not. We call that external attestation. We also can do so via lines of internal evidence. We've done this many times, particularly with the Orthodox (Orthodox, Jay Dyer, etc.). The fact that you have yet to actually examine our archives betrays what a dishonest opponent you are.

Document a widely known historical fact? There's 2000 years of witnesses and continuity, where would one even begin?

Where you start is is up to you. If it's a historical fact, then you should be able to document it. The fact that you haven't, your attitude, and the way you spell certain words, Orth..I mean JJ, is leading us to think that you aren't simply "JJ," rather you are one of our former banned commenters.

“The Holy Church.” God is pointed out, and His temple. “For the temple of God is holy,” says the Apostle, “which (temple) are ye.” This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church" - Augustine, on the Creed.

The Orthodox would disagree that this is a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. You need to prove that the Roman Catholic Church actually goes back to the First Century.

Pity you don't apply the criteria to yourselves and perma-ban the whole blog.

1. We peg our responses to nitwits like you. If you repeat yourself, we have to repeat ourselves.
2. And you don't get to tell us what to do in our own house, JJ.
3. In fact, that's warning number 3.

Survey Says....GOODBYE!

My suggestion for you if you want to actually interact with this blog with this attitude and level of argumentation again is that you start your own blog. However, I strongly suspect you have one already under a different name.

That said, this is how this works: You aren't debating in good faith. You keep repeating the same objections, and we keep answering them, yet you keep repeating them. You keep making assertions without supporting arguments. We've documented this several times.

So, being that you've reached the 3rd warning you have two choices.

1. Shape up.
2. Don't shape up.

In the event you choose the second option, we will, without further commentary, begin deleting your posts, for the choice of Option 2 will be taken as an admission that your argumentation really isn't worth the bandwidth. You can choose Option 1; in fact, you would do well to ask some of your fellow Roman Catholics to help you in the combox. In principle, we have no objection to that if it actually moves the discussion along.

1 comment:

  1. "You can choose Option 1; in fact, you would do well to ask some of your fellow Roman Catholics to help you in the combox. In principle, we have no objection to that if it actually moves the discussion along."

    One word decode:

    "NEXT!"

    ReplyDelete