Wednesday, September 05, 2007

When Catholics Represent Christianity

James White wrote a post about the poor apologetic support for the Assumption of Mary – I am sure most have you are following this discussion.

One thing he said rang true for me in light of a recent encounter a friend of mine had:

“Just look at how quickly Muslims, for example, assume Rome represents the Christian faith, and you will see how damaging her false teachings are to the promotion of true Christianity in our world today.”


This summer there was an intern in our department from the Middle East who was Muslim. I never had a chance to speak with him much, but my friend (a recent, former Roman Catholic) spent an hour one night talking religion with him.

Turns out that during his stay here in the US, he was rooming with a Roman Catholic who unfortunately ended up representing “Christianity". This Muslim young man was happy to learn from his new Catholic friend that they actually worshipped the same God and were able to come to a “I’m okay, you’re okay” consensus.

My friend did what she could to undo some of the damage, specifically in emphasizing the divinity and centrality of Jesus in the Christian message, but this man had already been warned by his Catholic friend to disregard “other Christians” who claimed Islam was incorrect. “Just tell them to see catechism #841” the Catholic had told him (he actually had the number memorized).

This is one of the many reasons that Roman Catholicism is worth opposing. Not only is Rome leading her own fold in the wrong direction, but she is a false witness to the one true gospel for those outside of her dominion. Personal experiences like this make it difficult to just stand on the sidelines and play nice as some would prefer.


"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims” CCC 841

85 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Just look at how quickly Muslims, for example, assume Rome represents the Christian faith, and you will see how damaging her false teachings are to the promotion of true Christianity in our world today.”

How did the darkness of Rome overcome the light of your religion, whatever it is? One would have assumed, per biblical promise, that your light would be so bright as to render Rome unrecognizable.

Dozie

Richard Froggatt said...

A couple of problems. First, the Roman Catholic who first spoke with this Muslim is not telling their side of the conversation; in essence you're getting it from a third party.

The Catholic Church does not teach an I'm ok you're ok religion.

No matter what church is representing Christianity, whether it's Protestant or Catholic, there may always be someone (though their intentions are honorable) who misrepresents what is acually believed and taught.

Carrie said...

First, the Roman Catholic who first spoke with this Muslim is not telling their side of the conversation; in essence you're getting it from a third party.

The point is how the Muslim understood Christianity after spending time with a Roman Catholic which is coming from the source.

And what the RC said to the Muslim is completely in agreement with the RCC's teachings so this is not just a matter of someone misrepresenting their own Church's teachings. According to the RCC, Muslims and Catholics worship the same God and there is an implied benefit to that fact.

As far as the "I'm okay, you're okay" teaching, I think most RCs get that from catechism #847:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."

kmerian said...

Carrie, That is not the teaching of that verse of the Catechism. We have had this discussion before. Perhaps your Muslim ran into a very liberal Catholic, clearly what he said is not what the church teaches. But you did not include that. Don't you realize that there are Protestants who feel the same way?

Perhaps the Catholic should have tried to convince the Muslim he was worshipping a pagan moon god, so the Muslim could have really shut out Christians as being ignorant.

Finally, the Catechism verse you quoted above has to do with those who never come in contact with Christianity. Perhaps you feel the millions who lived and died in the New World from 30 to 1492 all went to hell, Catholics believe that they are entrusted to God's mercy

Carrie said...

That is not the teaching of that verse of the Catechism. We have had this discussion before.

I am sharing a story of how a Muslim understood Christianity after discussions with a Catholic. The Catholic knew the number of the catechism pertaining to Muslims, and specifically told the Muslim to point other Christians to that catechism quote if they asserted that Islam was in error.

So we have a Catholic that is at least familiar with some of his catechism and his interpretation of the catechism tells him that Muslims are okay and worship the same God (and the “same god” part is official Church teaching). You, kmerian, also believe that Muslims worship the same God, but worship imperfectly although I am not sure how that plays out for you in the end.

Clearly you and this other Catholic interpret the catechism differently. I have found the official Church teaching on this subject rather vague and non-committing – if you can provide a document with more clarity, please do.

Richard Froggatt said...

Carrie,

Your point was well understood. However, it still stands that that there were three persons involved and you only got the details of the conversation from one person; this pretty much amounts to spreading gossip more than anything.

Also, not only are you misconstruing Catholic teaching but you also seem to know what "most" Catholics believe. Do you have a percentage? Was there a study done somewhere? Or is this just your personal opinion? I'd be willing to bet that your judging this by your own experience.

Maybe you meant to say that you know what "most" Catholics that you've encountered believe about that verse in the catechism. If that's the case I would still find it hard to believe without some concrete proof.

I'd be willing to grant that you've interacted with at least as many as 100 to 1000 Catholics; which hopefully means that you could be able to provide the evidence that you know what "most" Catholics believe.

Albert said...

James,

The following article explains why Roman Catholicism is wrong in its understanding of the god of Islam: http://www.justforcatholics.org/islam.htm.

Reality said...

Carrie wrote:
"The point is how the Muslim understood Christianity after spending time with a Roman Catholic which is coming from the source,"

Thank God that no Muslim would ever walk away with any incorrect understanding of Christianity from a conversation with someone advocating Reformed theology! As we all know every single Calvinist on the planet perfectly understands and perfectly communicates all Christian doctrine so that all who hear it understand it fully and completely.

What a witness you are!

Richard Froggatt said...

Albert,

Read that article and then consider this. When Paul discoursed with the folks at Mars Hill and he read the inscription to the unknown god; what was his reaction compared to what this article advocates?

Mike Burgess said...

Carrie,
You said: "Clearly you and this other Catholic interpret the catechism differently. I have found the official Church teaching on this subject rather vague and non-committing – if you can provide a document with more clarity, please do."

Here is one official teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter:

"He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."

See if you can figure out the source.

kmerian said...

Carrie, I have, in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope", Pope John Paul II clearly stated "Islam is NOT a religion of redemption".

How much clearer can you get?

Rhology said...

You Roman Catholics here, it amazes me that you won't just stick up for what your own church says.

From CCC 841: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."


A few questions if you disagree w/ what Carrie has said.
1) What does "plan of salvation" mean?
2) What does "include" mean?
3) What does "acknowledge the Creator" mean?
4) What does "together with us adore the one, merciful God" mean?

Richard Froggatt said...

Alan,

I stand behind what the Church says 100%. I just don't stand behind what critics say it says.

Re: your questions.

1- Just what it says, i.e. God's plan; see #2
2- For God so loved the world...
3- They do.
4- They profess to believe in the God of Abraham.

Rhology said...

Richard,

Re: #4, it says they "adore" God.
Do they adore the one true God? Together with Christians?

Reality said...

Rather than ask whether a Muslum can be saved, ask, whether God can save whomever He wants to save.

If you say He cannot save whomever He wants to savem then I submit it is you who worship a strange God, for your god is powerless to do his own will.

Alan said...

Well sure, but the question is: Whom does God want to save in reality, Reality?

Leo said...

I stick up for what my Church says, it says this:

Catechism of the Council of Trent (+1566): “Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. "

Pope Pius XI, Ad Salutem (#27), April 20, 1930: “…all the compulsion and folly, all the outrages and lust, introduced into man’s life by the demons through the worship of false gods.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434: “… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”

Pope Callixtus III: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of
the reprobate and faithless Mahomet
[Islam] in the East.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 12, March 16, 1517: “Our aim is to crush the Turks and other infidels standing firm in the eastern and southern regions. They treat the way of true light and salvation with complete contempt and totally unyielding blindness; they attack the life-giving cross on which our Saviour willed to accept death so that by dying He might destroy death, and by the ineffable mystery of His most holy life He might restore life; and they make themselves hateful enemies of God and most bitter persecutors of the Christian religion.”

Reality said...

rhology

RF just told you that they aknowledge the God of Abraham. If they also adore this same God, then in that sense they stand together even with you in adoring Him. What part didn't you understand?

Richard Froggatt said...

Alan,

Re; #4 they profess to; so together with us (according to what they profess to believe) they adore the one true God. That says nothing of the need for them to learn the truth of who or what God is, actually.

Its a similiar situation with regards to Oneness Pentacostals. Their understanding of who God is is different from trinitarians but I'd have a hard time saying that they love God any less, in terms of emotion. Do you think they are in danger of damnation because they don't believe the trinity?

reality said...

Islam by no means has the fullness of teaching and is by no means a religion of redemption, but if God so chooses to save any human, who are we to tell God he can't, if HE should so will?

Can we say catgorically and with absolute infallible knowledge that we know every Muslim who ever lived is in hell? What do we know of whatever might happen in the heart of any person during the last moments of his life? Is God powerless to reach that one by grace even in a nano-second? Or are we like the workers in the vinyard who complain because the master is generous, demanding that only they who worked the full day be given what is promised?

In short, it is not for us (Thank God!) to decide who is and is not the recipient of God's mercy. If so, we try to take Jesus's job, but we are trying to fill shoes that are too big for us by an infinate measure.

Jesus said go and make desciples of all men. He didn't say go and judge all men for heaven and hell.

Carrie said...

Also, not only are you misconstruing Catholic teaching but you also seem to know what "most" Catholics believe.

Richard,

I went back through and read my post and my comments here and can't find this.

Where did I say something about "what most Catholics believe"?

Carrie said...

Jesus said go and make desciples of all men. He didn't say go and judge all men for heaven and hell.

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.

God did not reveal a loophole. I stick with what God has revealed.

Carrie said...

Carrie, I have, in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope", Pope John Paul II clearly stated "Islam is NOT a religion of redemption".

Is a Pope's personal book as official as you can get on this subject?

BTW, Looks like Leo represents a third Catholic opinion on this subject.

Rhology said...

Reality,

"Acknowledging the god of Abraham" is not nearly the same thing as "trust Jesus Christ for salvation from sin". God has revealed that He wants to save everyone who does the latter, not the former.


Rich,

I don't know what to do. I'm alone in the Protestant wilderness of such wildly divergent opinions, being blown this way and that.
I come for refuge to hear the voice of the One True Church. And what do I hear? From Rich - Muslims will be saved. From Leo - Muslims will not be saved.

Can you help me out and explain why I should believe you and not Leo? The CCC and not the 5th Lateran Council?

reality said...

I wrote:

Jesus said go and make desciples of all men. He didn't say go and judge all men for heaven and hell.

Carrie wrote:

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.

None of the above contradict the other.

Carrie wrote:
God did not create a loophole.

No kidding. This sin't a loophole. Who said that Jesus is not the saviour of all who are saved?

Carrie also wrote:
I stick with what God has revealed.

Has God revealed to you every soul Jesus saved is saving and will save? Did Origen make it?

Anonymous said...

rhology

you can bet your paycheck thaqt Leo is no more a Catholic than you are.

GeneMBridges said...

When Paul discoursed with the folks at Mars Hill and he read the inscription to the unknown god; what was his reaction compared to what this article advocates?

Are you suggesting that Islam and "the Unknown God" are convertible propositions? Where is the supporting argument? Paul preached to polytheists, Stoics, and Epicureans, not Muslims.

The analogy would be more aptly drawn between something like Artemis and YHWH. Did Paul go around saying that Artemis and YHWH were one and the same? No.

4- They profess to believe in the God of Abraham.

Oh, so "professing" to believe in the God of Abraham makes their profession true? In that case, does Rome also teach that Allah is the God of Abraham?

You see, Robert, that's the issue here. The God of Islam is not YHWH. The only way the catechism could be correct is under either the assumption that (a) a profession to believe the Allah is YHWH is enough to be true (in which case the identity of Allah is in the eye of the beholder and not objectively true) or (b) Allah is, in fact, YHWH. Pick your poison - one denies the objectivity of truth and the other says that Allah is YHWH. Which of these do you believe?

And notice what is happening in this thread, we have Roman Catholics disagreeing over the interpretation of the Cathechism - but isn't one of the standard criticisms of the Protestant rule of faith this very lack of unanimity? So much for the Roman rule of faith's allegedly superiority.

Rather than ask whether a Muslum can be saved, ask, whether God can save whomever He wants to save.

If you say He cannot save whomever He wants to savem then I submit it is you who worship a strange God, for your god is powerless to do his own will.


Yes, God saves whomever He wants to save, but not apart from the gospel. "Reality's" view undermines the whole missionary enterprise and directly opposes Scripture.

Its a similiar situation with regards to Oneness Pentacostals. Their understanding of who God is is different from trinitarians but I'd have a hard time saying that they love God any less, in terms of emotion. Do you think they are in danger of damnation because they don't believe the trinity?

Now who's the liberal Catholic? What do the creeds state on this? I wonder how many of the Early Church Fathers would agree with RF that those who reject the Trinity can be saved? What about the Scholastics?

And notice the move from Allah to YHWH. Oneness Pentecostalism acknowledges YHWH - but its conception of YHWH is not Trinitarian. In this respect, they are like Jewish Ebionites - not Muslims, for Allah is not YHWH.

If RF was consistent, he'd have to admit Jews can be saved apart from the gospel in the New Covenant era. I'd like him substantiate that from Scripture.

RF is now playing like a Protestant and distinguishing between kinds and degrees of error and/or teaching that a genuine believer will not bear fruit - for believing true fundamental articles of the faith when taught is a "fruit." Is RF an antinomian (another standard Catholic objection to justification by faith alone)? I'd add that this is a stellar example of old Arminianism from its early years in which it allied itself with Socinianism and Unitarianism and said the Trinity was not a fundamental article of the faith.

Protestants are quite comfortable distinguishing between levels of error. Are they in danger of damnation - yes, (a) if they cultivate their errors and (b) reject the truth when taught it.

However, at the same time, this does not mean Protestant soteriology does not make the Trinity or justification by faith alone objects of saving faith, but they are objects of a credible profession of faith.

In Reformed theology, we draw a distinction between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession of faith. For purposes of church membership, cooperation with other denominational entities, etc., since we cannot know of a certainty who is or isn't saved, we only require a credible profession of faith. A saving profession of faith lies solely between an individual and God.

For example, a Catholic that affirms the current dogmas of Rome cannot offer a credible profession of faith to a consistent Protestant. But whether a Catholic can offer a saving profession of faith is a different question. The answer varies on a case-by-case basis. It is easier to say who isn't saved than to say who is.

To be a Christian is to be, among other things, a Christian believer. One must believe certain things, and not believe certain other, contrary things. On the one hand, some dogmas are damnable dogmas. On the other hand, the Bible lays out certain saving articles of faith. This is God's criterion, not ours. We did not invent it. By the same token, how God applies that criterion in any individual case is up to God, not to us. We are not the judge, God is the Judge. To take a concrete example, Scripture teaches Sola Fide (faith alone) (Romans; Galatians). An individual is saved by faith in Christ and saved by the sole and sufficient merit of Christ.

However, in Catholic dogma, one is saved by the merit of Christ plus the merit of the saints plus one's own congruent merit. And this results in a divided faith. That is why a Catholic cannot give a consistent Protestant a credible profession of faith. In fairness, Protestants are more prone to give a Catholic church member a pass on the credible profession of faith than they do a Catholic bishop or the Pope or some of their lay apologists, because they very clearly have bought into the full range of Catholic dogmas. Likewise, we're very comfortable admitting a man can be saved and yet reject justification by faith alone, but if he then cultivates that error and knowingly and wilffully teaches against it, this is a sign he is unregenerate, for that would be a sign that his faith is divided and in his merits.

Any of the following creeds/confessions could supply the basis for a credible profession of faith:

1. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Christian Religion

2. The Formula of Concord

3. The Baptist Faith & Message (any version)(http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp)

4. The C&MA statement of faith
(http://www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/doctrine.jsp)

5. The JFJ statement of faith (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/about/statementoffaith)

6. The EFCA statement of faith (http://www.efca.org/about/doctrine/)

7. The Campus Crusade statement of faith (http://www.ccci.org/statement_of_faith.html)

8. The AG statement of faith (http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm)

These are all broadly evangelical affirmations of faith. Notice, not all are Reformed. Some are Lutheran; some are Arminian. By contrast, Trent or Vatican II does not supply the basis for a credible profession of faith. Still, it is possible for a Catholic to be saved, unlike a Muslim or Mormon or other suchlike.

GeneMBridges said...

Jesus said go and make desciples of all men. He didn't say go and judge all men for heaven and hell.

False, he told us to judge trees by their fruit.

Rhology said...

Yeah, I even called Catholic Answers live yesterday (05 Sept) and talked to Tim Staples on the air. Part of his answer to my question on the canon of RC infallible teachings was to tell me that Prots don't have an infallible way to interpret Scripture.

Yet here Richard Froggatt and Leo are telling me conflicting things about this issue. This is the precise thing that the RCC tells me I need the Magisterium to avoid. How can we resolve this issue?

Richard Froggatt said...

Carrie,

I apologize. I've misread you; must be my dislexia kicking in (self diagnosis).

Gene,

I'd like to interact with your post but it will be a while...off to work

Reality said...

GB wrote:
"False, he told us to judge trees by their fruit."

Did he tell you to place those trees into heaven or hell? Ah the perils of relying upon sola scriptura to settle disputes where each man makes of himself not merely a pope but now, if he pelases as does Gene, Jesus himself.

Jesus specifically taught us to identify the virtue of people by their actions. He did not tell us to send them to heaven or hell. If you imagine yourself as having that ability, you delude yourself and make a god of yourself. Jesus shall come to judge the living and the dead, not (Thank you God!) you.

Rhology said...

Reality,

God apparently, according to the Bible, will send those who do not confess Jesus Christ as Savior to hell.
Those are the ones He wants to save. Are you saying something different?

reality said...

GB said...
"Still, it is possible for a Catholic to be saved, unlike a Muslim or Mormon or other suchlike."

Did Jesus tell you this personally? Did he explain to you what magical force prevents him from extending his grace to whomever he will?

reality said...

rhology said...
"God apparently, according to the Bible, will send those who do not confess Jesus Christ as Savior to hell."

And are you saying that you know that even in the last nanosecond of life, God cannot so move by grace any person to so confess in his heart?

Guess what. God is not bound to the altar-call and sinner's prayer formula of soul winning. For all the claims you Reformed theology types make that God is soverign and that nobody comes to Him except by God's grace, and by no work of his own, you sure have trouble actually believing it when presented with the possiblilty God might actually save someone by that process.

Jesus judges souls. You do not.

Mike Burgess said...

genembridges said "The analogy would be more aptly drawn between something like Artemis and YHWH. Did Paul go around saying that Artemis and YHWH were one and the same? No."
I posted a quote from the very Saint Paul who spoke on Mars' Hill above and it has been completely ignored by all of you. Read it again:
"He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."
Romans 2:6-16

The Gentiles in question were not monotheists. They worshipped, among others, the Artemis Gene referred to. And yet, St. Paul speaks of them as doing "by nature" what the law requires and being a law unto themselves, that they have the law written on their hearts, that they will be either accused or excused, and that they will be judged in Christ, despite their polytheism, because, through no fault of their own, they had not been presented with the Old Covenant or with the New. God, in His mercy and justice, who wills all men to come to a saving knowledge, judges them by the light they have, not by the light they do not have. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

None of this negates or nullifies the mandate of the absolute necessity to preach Him and Him crucified to the ends of the earth, the uniqueness of Christ, or any other magisterial pronouncement. God will not be mocked by Satan, who has attempted to keep many from hearing the Gospel. God, in His mercy and justice, will, in His plan of salvation, is ot limited to ordinary means which He established. He will call those to Himself whom He has chosen. He preached to the spirits in prison, doubtless (since He is and eternal God) this includes those who were, are and will be His own sheep not of our fold.

mike burgess said...

Typo alert: God is "not" limited, and He is "an" eternal God. Sorry.

Rhology said...

Reality,

God cannot so move by grace any person to so confess in his heart?

You sound like a HyperCalvinist.

Jesus judges souls. You do not.

Right, but this fact qualifies me to say things like "If someone remains a Muslim until death, they are judged for their own sins."

theo said...

Reality wrote in part:
"Jesus judges souls. You do not."

Dear Christian, may I humbly remind you that you will do well to heed your own words. If I read you correctly, you risk being guilty of the same thing yourself.

Writing as one who is equally guilty,
--Theo

----

Mike Burgess:

I was considering posting to this thread again; however, I doubt I could contribute any more or better than you are doing. It's a pleasure to read your commentary.

God bless you and keep you all.
Your servant and brother in Christ,
--Theo

reality said...

Gene,

I'm sorry that I accused you of trying to usurp Jesus. I was wrong to do that.

Reality said...

Dear "Leo."

Please tell me, what is your faith? I followed your link to your website (hosted by the same host as is Carrie's site), and I notice that your writing style and message and Carrie's blog style and message are similar to a level that is uncanny.

You wouldn't happen to be Carrie, now would you?

Rhology said...

reality,

Even if Carrie were Leo, that would not change the fact that these statements that contradict the CCC's statement on Muslims exist in RCC history. Someone needs to account for them.

Reality said...

No, but it would tell us something about Carrie's honesty, integrety and witness.

What is is Gene said, by their fruits?

Reality said...

No, but it would tell us something about Carrie's honesty, integrety and witness. And how James Swan deals with it will tell us plenty as well.

What is is Gene said, by their fruits?

Anonymous said...

Carrie's silence is feafening.

Not reality, but some random, anonymous calvinist (call me leo2), yeah right said...

Feafening?

That should have been, "deafening"

some other guy who is not this reality person... must be Leo... said...

by the way, rhology, your own defense of liars (if Leo is Carrie, then Carrie knowing lied by claiming Leo is Catholic) says something about you too.

Nice fruit there, rhology. I bet you're proud.

Saint and Sinner said...

First, let me say that it is God's right to save those whom He wills to save. However, He has revealed in His Word that He will not save anyone who has not heard the message of Christ and bowed the knee before Him. I'd also add that the doctrine of Particular Redemption solves this question quite easily (in that the gospel message reaches those whom God wants to).

Secondly, as to Romans 2, it says that they have the *work* of the law written on their hearts, not the law itself. Paul is saying that the image of God has not been completely destroyed in them in that there are moral unbelievers. He uses this to show that Jews will not be saved simply because they are Jews. If unbelieves who are on their way to perdition can do something good, then a wicked Jew, who is held to a higher standard because he has the Law, will most certainly go there as well. Paul says this to point out that both need repentance.

Next, Paul does not say that it is "through no fault of their own"; that is a quote from some Pope anachronistically read back into Scripture. Rather, in Romans 1, Paul says that they KNOW God. It is *not* merely that they have some sense of divinity, but rather, they KNOW "TON THEON", THE God. However, they suppress it in unrighteousness.

Also, you misused 1 Timothy 2:4
http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/limited_atonement_2.htm

Lastly, I don't know if anyone has quoted this as of yet, but...

“So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd.’”-Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam

“Furthermore we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”
-Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam

Lastly, Reality, it is obvious that Leo IS a Roman Catholic. He's just a Catholic who is more in touch with your church's historical roots.

Rhology said...

You guys crack me up.
Is this a discussion about carrie's identity or Leo's identity, or are we talking about the post?
You have no evidence that Carrie is Leo; you're just trying to smokescreen.

I'll ask again - who is right? 5th Lateran Council or the CCC?

Carrie said...

Carrie's silence is deafening.

No Reality, I am not Leo and I really do not appreciate you accusing me of such dishonesty.

not carrie said...

Unlike before when James pointed to your site as a "Catholic site" and you simply let that one stand, right?

not rhology either said...

Right rhology, so you defend lying if it promotes your doctrinal claims, is that it? "Even if Carrie is Leo..."

Got it. Integrety.

Carrie said...

I followed your link to your website (hosted by the same host as is Carrie's site),

Sorry, but this is too funny.

Your big proof is that Leo and I both use blogger along with probably a million other people?

where's Leo? said...

Carrie:

I simply asked wheter you and he are the same. It looks suspicious. I did not say this is proof.

Methinks she has gone from telling silence to tellinf protestation.

Rhology said...

I'd like you to have some "integrety" and answer the question.

5th Lateran Council? CCC? Which? And why?

Carrie said...

before when James pointed to your site as a "Catholic site" and you simply let that one stand, right?

1. The topic of my blog is Catholicism, so calling it a Catholic blog is not exactly incorrect.

2. If you disapprove of James' wording, take it up with him.

Now, if you guys want to come up with conspiracy theories about me and continue to insult me, that's fine. But leave rhology out of it.

I will not watch other commenters be abused here and I do have the ability to delete your comments if you cannot behave.

some random protestant named "Martin", yeah, that's it, "martin" said...

Saint & Sinner said...
"Leo IS a Roman Catholic."

You know that for sure, do you? You know that someone who claims to be a Catholic would at the same time build a web site whose sole purpose seems to be to deny Modern Catholic theology regarding the roles of the Church and other ecclesiastical communities?

You sure do know more than me, pal.

back to reality said...

Let me get this straight, "The topic of my blog is Catholicism, so calling it a Catholic blog is not exactly incorrect."

so he wasn't lying, he was merely deceiving? Good stuff.

Rhology said...

Sounds like there's Carrie, me, Leo, RF, and one spammer in on this. And the spammer is acting like an idiot. But I repeat myself.

But I'll be glad to see Richard Froggatt whenever he gets a chance to come back here; I'd like my question answered. But I understand that it might be a while since he had to go to work.

theo said...

Reality,

As a practicing Catholic, for your own sake, please stop it. you must know that you risk judgement yourself.

Humbly, I remain your servant and brother in Christ,
--THeo

theo said...

Rhology my Brother,

I'm not ,i>exactly whether asking "which is correct" is actually a valid question from the Catholic perspective.

Unless the statements you ask about were made "ex cathedra" it is possible that neither statement is totally correct.

This of course is a very unsatisfying answer for our critics who are already convinced that our teachings regarding the Church leading in all truth and our simultaneous teachings that even the most high official can make errors demonstrates mere sophistry. Add to that that even in cases of dogmatic statements, we do not rule out that their understanding can be clarified and corrected as we continue to learn more about God's infinite kingdom, and I can see how critics must simply want to jump all over it.

The bottom line is that what you seem to demand that we should mean by infallible pronouncements of the Magesterium is something like "everything every church council or official ever says is infallible and must be taken by Catholics as the absolute truth, or they are being false to their teaching. Whereas we understand such pronouncements to be very limited in occurrence, and even then not subject to private interpretation, just as Scripture itself is not subject to private interpretation.

This would naturally segue into a discussion of what we mean by "not subject to private interpretation," which is a phrase that (ironically) many Catholics misunderstand with to the same degree as do our Protestant brothers.

I will be traveling over the next few days, so I'll not have opportunity to elaborate or respond likely until Monday at the soonest.

In the meanwhile, God bless you with every good gift for the strengthening of His Kingdom.
I remain your servant and brother in Christ,
--Theo

Saint and Sinner said...

Martin (or whoever),

You said, "You know that for sure, do you? You know that someone who claims to be a Catholic would at the same time build a web site whose sole purpose seems to be to deny Modern Catholic theology regarding the roles of the Church and other ecclesiastical communities?"

That's because he's a TRADITIONALIST and/or SEDEVACANTIST. That is, he's someone who realizes that modern RC theology CONTRADICTS the RC theology of the past. He's like Gerry Matatics or Robert Sungenis.

C'mon, man. He has pictures of several of the old Popes who made explicit theological statements that go against modern Rome's theology.

Just look at his post on Justification:

http://vitwilderness.blogspot.com/2007/06/justification-works-of-law_21.html

He's giving the standard apologetic for the RC theology of works and merit. He's RC; no doubt.

Saint and Sinner said...

BTW Leo,

You gave a straw-man of the Protestant theology of justification (as did the Council of Trent).

Rhology said...

Theo,

After reality or whomever's comments, you are a breath of fresh air. May you have a safe trip.
That said, I doubt we're brothers. But "friend" works.

And this whole "I want infallible statements!" is not coming from ME. It's the standard laid down by RC apologists, who criticise Sola Scriptura by saying that it does not solve the problem of fallible individual interpretation.

So then I mention the difference that is obvious between 5th Lateran Council and the CCC. Anyone can see the difference.
And now I'm getting "well, it's not clear which one is infallible". How then does that help the person who takes the claims of these RC apologists seriously? If RCC can provide infallible interpretations, why don't you ever know if it did or not?
That alone is enough to disqualify such statements as special pleading and silly, to say nothing of the fact that an infallible teaching authority simply pushes the fallibility question back one step.

Leo said...

reality said...

Islam by no means has the fullness of teaching and is by no means a religion of redemption, but if God so chooses to save any human, who are we to tell God he can't, if HE should so will?

Can we say catgorically and with absolute infallible knowledge that we know every Muslim who ever lived is in hell? What do we know of whatever might happen in the heart of any person during the last moments of his life? Is God powerless to reach that one by grace even in a nano-second? Or are we like the workers in the vinyard who complain because the master is generous, demanding that only they who worked the full day be given what is promised?

In short, it is not for us (Thank God!) to decide who is and is not the recipient of God's mercy. If so, we try to take Jesus's job, but we are trying to fill shoes that are too big for us by an infinate measure.

Jesus said go and make desciples of all men. He didn't say go and judge all men for heaven and hell.


“And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore, I said to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin.” (John 8:23-24)

Mohammetans do not Believe in Him, I think that if we really do believe in Jesus, we have to agree with Him here that those who do not believe in Him will die in their sins and be lost.

Jesus saith to them: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

“… the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ… Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven, given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

“He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

“If anyone abideth not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.” (John 15:6)


St. Ambrose, Letter 17, #1: "For salvation is not sure unless everyone worship in truth the true God, that is the God of the Christians, under Whose sway are all things; for He alone is the true God, Who is to be worshipped from the bottom of the heart; for "the gods of the heathen," as Scripture says, "are devils."'

St. Alphonsus Liguori (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”

Leo said...

No, I'm not Carrrie, Carrie does not believe by the heart and confess with the mouth the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith, I do.

That's because he's a TRADITIONALIST and/or SEDEVACANTIST. That is, he's someone who realizes that modern RC theology CONTRADICTS the RC theology of the past. He's like Gerry Matatics or Robert Sungenis.

What in the world is that supposed to mean?

Of course I'm Traditionalist, I could not be Catholic and novus ordo, I would have to deny the theology of my Patron Saint Pope Leo the great, and the Council of Chalcedon, and that I cannot do.

Saint and Sinner, thanks for the feedback on that justification post, I'll come up with something new to better the argument, I don't believe that anyone can work their way to heaven, that post needs to be read in the context of the first one.

By contrast, Trent or Vatican II does not supply the basis for a credible profession of faith.


Athanasian Creed, Council of Nicea.

Trent does, however, explain what Catholics believe on those points therein addressed, and states that all who profess the Catholic Faith must believe so.

Is this a discussion about carrie's identity or Leo's identity, or are we talking about the post?
You have no evidence that Carrie is Leo; you're just trying to smokescreen.


I'll ask again - who is right? 5th Lateran Council or the CCC?

I'd like to see that to: who is right, a dogmatic Council of the Church under ex Cathedra, or a catechism, in your opinon?

you can bet your paycheck thaqt Leo is no more a Catholic than you are.

Anon, who are you, and by what standard do you make that judgement?

Dear "Leo."

Please tell me, what is your faith? I followed your link to your website (hosted by the same host as is Carrie's site), and I notice that your writing style and message and Carrie's blog style and message are similar to a level that is uncanny.

You wouldn't happen to be Carrie, now would you?


Top banner of my blog, it states "CATHOLIC", no way to miss that one.
My writing style is my own, I don't think it is anything like Carrie's, she is Prot, I'm Cath, and there are two completely different perspectives therein.

Ree said...

I don't know, Leo, when you weren't responding to the charges, I was convinced that you were Carrie because of your silence, but now I'm convinced because you deny it. You obviously must be Carrie.

Rhology said...

Nobody wants to answer my questions about how I can know which church is the right one? Man, this is tough. Not only the regular RCC but also the traditional RCC and the EOC, the Copts, and a host of others. This is like trying to choose between Baptist churches in my town.

Leo said...

Ree,

I have things to do, I cannot remain on this blog monitering the comments section to see if people think I'm Protestant.

Clearly I'm different from Carrie, Carrie is co-blogger with two Protestants, and is a Protestant, has no interest in Distributism and Catholic social teaching, and does not blog with Traditional Catholics, I do, just see my profile on blogger.

rhology,

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896: “The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord – leaving the path of salvation they enter on that path of perdition… He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. ...the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, # 7, Nov. 1, 1900: "By the law of Christ we mean not only the natural precepts of morality and the Ancient Law, all of which Jesus Christ has perfected and crowned by His declaration, explanation and sanction; but also the rest of His doctrine and His own peculiar institutions. Of these the chief is His Church. Indeed whatsoever things Christ has instituted are most fully contained in His Church. Moreover, He willed to perpetuate the office assigned to Him by His Father by means of the ministry of the Church so gloriously founded by Himself. On the one hand He confided to her all the means of men's salvation, on the other He most solemnly commanded men to be subject to her and to obey her diligently, and to follow her even as Himself: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me" (Luke x, 16). Wherefore the law of Christ must be sought in the Church. Christ is man's "Way"; the Church also is his "Way"-Christ of Himself and by His very nature, the Church by His commission and the communication of His power."

Richard Froggatt said...

I tried posting this around 2am this morning but the letters were not showing up for the word verification.
Alan, you said:

I don't know what to do. I'm alone in the Protestant wilderness of such wildly divergent opinions, being blown this way and that.
I come for refuge to hear the voice of the One True Church. And what do I hear? From Rich - Muslims will be saved. From Leo - Muslims will not be saved.

Can you help me out and explain why I should believe you and not Leo? The CCC and not the 5th Lateran Council?


Alan,

First, I never said you had to believe me. But I will tell you how I deal with the above. I’m Catholic, I’m not alone. Christ left his church, he gave authority and I believe that authority is binding. Leo is not that authority. But lets grant for a moment that the two differences were actually confusing. What would you bring to the table? Another view and more confusion. So what have you gained by your question? You haven’t made me think about the situation; I’ve been there done that.

What I would do and have done in similar situations is ask why. Why did the church say what it said at Lateran and why did it say what it said at the Vatican councils? I also ask myself; could the Church really be that dumb that they’ve forgotten what they’ve taught?

Your first couple of sentences seem to be ironic. I don’t believe, from reading you on the internet, that you’re “being blown this way and that“. But was it always so? You didn’t change your views doctrinally a few times as you tried to understand scripture? Didn’t you seek out wise counsel?

If I were Protestant, especially before I returned to the Church, I would have hoped I was right where you are. I would look to the same folks you look to when you have a question.

But to answer your question, if it were sincere (and I in no way imply that you are not sincere; just the question) I would say go to the Bishop. Pray and seek wise counsel.

Peace

Richard Froggatt said...

Gene wrote:
Are you suggesting that Islam and "the Unknown God" are convertible propositions? Where is the supporting argument? Paul preached to polytheists, Stoics, and Epicureans, not Muslims.

No that’s not my suggestion. The comparison that I was making was not who Paul was preaching to but how.

The analogy would be more aptly drawn between something like Artemis and YHWH. Did Paul go around saying that Artemis and YHWH were one and the same? No.

Again, not my argument. Paul drew on what they understood and believed and used that as a catalyst for the gospel.


Oh, so "professing" to believe in the God of Abraham makes their profession true? In that case, does Rome also teach that Allah is the God of Abraham?

To answer the second question first; no. I never said that their profession was true; in fact I denied it.

You see, Robert, that's the issue here. The God of Islam is not YHWH. The only way the catechism could be correct is under either the assumption that (a) a profession to believe the Allah is YHWH is enough to be true (in which case the identity of Allah is in the eye of the beholder and not objectively true) or (b) Allah is, in fact, YHWH. Pick your poison - one denies the objectivity of truth and the other says that Allah is YHWH. Which of these do you believe?

This is not the argument of the catechism either. The argument from the catechism rests more on the Muslims heart position; their seeking after truth, then it does on their profession. The profession is mentioned as a catalyst much like Paul’s example.

And notice what is happening in this thread, we have Roman Catholics disagreeing over the interpretation of the Cathechism - but isn't one of the standard criticisms of the Protestant rule of faith this very lack of unanimity? So much for the Roman rule of faith's allegedly superiority.

I don’t believe that is an accurate portrayal of the criticism. The Catholic criticism is not over differences of opinion but how they are resolved; if indeed they need to be.

Gene quoting Reality:
Rather than ask whether a Muslum can be saved, ask, whether God can save whomever He wants to save.

If you say He cannot save whomever He wants to savem then I submit it is you who worship a strange God, for your god is powerless to do his own will.


Yes, God saves whomever He wants to save, but not apart from the gospel. "Reality's" view undermines the whole missionary enterprise and directly opposes Scripture.



I believe that there must be a misunderstanding here. We as Catholics don’t separate the gospel from Christ. We believe; if indeed a Muslim is saved, that it’s not apart from Christ. He is the gospel.

Its a similiar situation with regards to Oneness Pentacostals. Their understanding of who God is is different from trinitarians but I'd have a hard time saying that they love God any less, in terms of emotion. Do you think they are in danger of damnation because they don't believe the trinity?

Now who's the liberal Catholic? What do the creeds state on this? I wonder how many of the Early Church Fathers would agree with RF that those who reject the Trinity can be saved? What about the Scholastics?


The creeds don’t answer the question of a person born thousands of years later listening to thousands of voices all claiming to be true.

And notice the move from Allah to YHWH. Oneness Pentecostalism acknowledges YHWH - but its conception of YHWH is not Trinitarian. In this respect, they are like Jewish Ebionites - not Muslims, for Allah is not YHWH.

My example was not given for the reason of finding similarities of YHWH and Allah but to give another example of someone's misunderstanding of a truth; yet still yearning to follow truth.

If RF was consistent, he'd have to admit Jews can be saved apart from the gospel in the New Covenant era. I'd like him substantiate that from Scripture.

I can’t (and I don’t think anyone else can either) substantiate from scripture who will or will not be saved. But I can say that God will have mercy on whom He wills.

RF is now playing like a Protestant and distinguishing between kinds and degrees of error and/or teaching that a genuine believer will not bear fruit - for believing true fundamental articles of the faith when taught is a "fruit." Is RF an antinomian (another standard Catholic objection to justification by faith alone)? I'd add that this is a stellar example of old Arminianism from its early years in which it allied itself with Socinianism and Unitarianism and said the Trinity was not a fundamental article of the faith.

I would never say that the Trinity is not fundamental. I would never tell anyone that they can believe what they want and everything will be just fine. But I won’t presume to pass judgment based on what a person believes or does not believe.

Protestants are quite comfortable distinguishing between levels of error. Are they in danger of damnation - yes, (a) if they cultivate their errors and (b) reject the truth when taught it.

You base this statement on what you believe to be true. Are rejection and disbelief the same thing? Maybe to an extent; but again, when there are many voices, rejection to some is prudence to others.

However, at the same time, this does not mean Protestant soteriology does not make the Trinity or justification by faith alone objects of saving faith, but they are objects of a credible profession of faith.

In Reformed theology, we draw a distinction between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession of faith. For purposes of church membership, cooperation with other denominational entities, etc., since we cannot know of a certainty who is or isn't saved, we only require a credible profession of faith. A saving profession of faith lies solely between an individual and God.


You’re closer to Catholicism then I thought.

For example, a Catholic that affirms the current dogmas of Rome cannot offer a credible profession of faith to a consistent Protestant. But whether a Catholic can offer a saving profession of faith is a different question. The answer varies on a case-by-case basis. It is easier to say who isn't saved than to say who is.

I disagree.

To be a Christian is to be, among other things, a Christian believer. One must believe certain things, and not believe certain other, contrary things. On the one hand, some dogmas are damnable dogmas. On the other hand, the Bible lays out certain saving articles of faith. This is God's criterion, not ours. We did not invent it. By the same token, how God applies that criterion in any individual case is up to God, not to us. We are not the judge, God is the Judge. To take a concrete example, Scripture teaches Sola Fide (faith alone) (Romans; Galatians). An individual is saved by faith in Christ and saved by the sole and sufficient merit of Christ.

I didn’t know we were discussing what it means to be a Christian.

However, in Catholic dogma, one is saved by the merit of Christ plus the merit of the saints plus one's own congruent merit. And this results in a divided faith. That is why a Catholic cannot give a consistent Protestant a credible profession of faith. In fairness, Protestants are more prone to give a Catholic church member a pass on the credible profession of faith than they do a Catholic bishop or the Pope or some of their lay apologists, because they very clearly have bought into the full range of Catholic dogmas. Likewise, we're very comfortable admitting a man can be saved and yet reject justification by faith alone, but if he then cultivates that error and knowingly and wilffully teaches against it, this is a sign he is unregenerate, for that would be a sign that his faith is divided and in his merits.

Again, this is based upon your understanding of what truth is. Ultimately we would end up in an interpretation contest. I also don’t understand how faith can be divided. Catholics place faith in Christ. I know of no Catholic who has faith in their works.


These are all broadly evangelical affirmations of faith. Notice, not all are Reformed. Some are Lutheran; some are Arminian. By contrast, Trent or Vatican II does not supply the basis for a credible profession of faith. Still, it is possible for a Catholic to be saved, unlike a Muslim or Mormon or other suchlike.

Why should they have supplied what's already been supplied? We have a creed and we have a basis of what it means to be Christian. You just disagree. We also believe that God is just, merciful and righteous and whomever is saved is saved because of it.


Peace

Ree said...

Don't worry, Leo, I don't really think you're Carrie. I thought the irony was evident in my post. Apparently it wasn't.

Rhology said...

Leo,

You then go on to quote a bunch of Roman statements as if Roman claims are in question here. They're not, but the veracity of their claims to be the ancient and apostolic faith is in question.
You apparently will tell me that Richard Froggatt is proposing the wrong infallible interpreter, as he would say about you. And of course both of you would say the same about Brooklyn (JWs), Salt Lake (LDS), or Constantinople (EOC), etc. I apparently need to be infallible to know which infall interper to pick.
But one thing is for sure - 5th Lateran says one thing (as do many, many other statements), CCC says a contradictory thing. I'm glad I'm not in RF's shoes. I'm glad I'm not in your shoes, either, Leo, b/c you have to defend your traditions no matter how unbiblical or how irrational or ahistorical.

RF,

Thanks for your time, but you didn't even touch my question. You ran an end-around. "We're the Church, trust us!" That's sola ecclesia in classic form.

Peace,
Rhology

PS: the references to "blown around" were ironic hyperbole, yes. :-D

Leo said...

Leo,

You then go on to quote a bunch of Roman statements as if Roman claims are in question here. They're not, but the veracity of their claims to be the ancient and apostolic faith is in question.
You apparently will tell me that Richard Froggatt is proposing the wrong infallible interpreter, as he would say about you. And of course both of you would say the same about Brooklyn (JWs), Salt Lake (LDS), or Constantinople (EOC), etc. I apparently need to be infallible to know which infall interper to pick.
But one thing is for sure - 5th Lateran says one thing (as do many, many other statements), CCC says a contradictory thing. I'm glad I'm not in RF's shoes. I'm glad I'm not in your shoes, either, Leo, b/c you have to defend your traditions no matter how unbiblical or how irrational or ahistorical.


He does not quote anything that is infallible. You do not understand when a Pope speaks ex Cathedra, so it would be better not to make rash judgements like that.

You prove my point that there is a difference in the Traditional Catholic magisterium and the modern one, how come so many people cannot see that? How can one say that one who says one thing, is just reiterating someone who said the opposite? That is illogical.

How do you know that the gospel of Mark is scriptural, who says so?

Furthermore, my beliefs are only unscriptural by your private interpretation, in essence, you cannot say that my interpretation is false based solely on your interpretation, for that holds only as must value as does mine, according to Private interpretation, I'll decide what is biblical for myself, and I'll not let any Protestant tell me what to believe is scriptural or no.

Can you prove to me that my faith is not historical, and yours is?
Can you show me the existence of your beliefs from the death of Christ all the way to present time?

Rhology said...

Hi Leo,

You do not understand when a Pope speaks ex Cathedra, so it would be better not to make rash judgements like that.

Fine, please let me know HOW I can know that. Is it not pretty straightforward? I thought having an infall interper was supposed to take individualistic guesswork out of matters of faith and morals. I'll be expecting a rundown of that info next comment.

how come so many people cannot see that?

B/c people are fallible.
Kind of like when people read statements made by the infall interper.

How do you know that the gospel of Mark is scriptural, who says so?

The Canon is an artifact of revelation - God, by virtue of breathing out this book as opposed to another one, moves His people to accept the book passively, over time.
How do *you* know it is Scriptural? Trent? That was in the 16th century, you know. Was the Canon is total disarray before the 16th cent? Could no one know it?
How did a pious Jewish man living in 50 BC know Isaiah was Scriptural?

Can you prove to me that my faith is not historical, and yours is?

Yes.

Can you show me the existence of your beliefs from the death of Christ all the way to present time?

1) I don't see why "all the way to the present" is relevant.
2) A great deal of documentation exists on the very Sola Scriptura-esque ideas of the early church.
3) I was just reading 1 Clement yesterday and ran across a marvelous reference to Romans 4 and justification by faith alone.
4) My faith is much older than yours. It's by the grace of God alone that I recognise that.

Peace,
Rhology

Richard Froggatt said...

Hi Alan,

I apologize that the answer to your question is to you insufficient. What I'd like to know is; what kind of answer would be acceptable to you? The bishop is not good nor prayer nor wise counsel. What else is there to offer you in reply?

I have a feeling that there would be no good answer to your question.

Leo said...

Fine, please let me know HOW I can know that. Is it not pretty straightforward? I thought having an infall interper was supposed to take individualistic guesswork out of matters of faith and morals. I'll be expecting a rundown of that info next comment.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

The Canon is an artifact of revelation - God, by virtue of breathing out this book as opposed to another one, moves His people to accept the book passively, over time.
How do *you* know it is Scriptural? Trent? That was in the 16th century, you know. Was the Canon is total disarray before the 16th cent? Could no one know it?
How did a pious Jewish man living in 50 BC know Isaiah was Scriptural?


When did God reveal this Revelation, where is the infallible word of God document that lists the books of the Bible as scripture?

Council of Carthage, 397.

Because they had a hierarchy to assure them that that was indeed what God had given them, a hierarchy sanctioned by God btw.

Can you prove to me that my faith is not historical, and yours is?

Yes.


Ok, century by century, I want you to demonstrate the existence of the body of believers who believed like you do.

1) I don't see why "all the way to the present" is relevant.
2) A great deal of documentation exists on the very Sola Scriptura-esque ideas of the early church.
3) I was just reading 1 Clement yesterday and ran across a marvelous reference to Romans 4 and justification by faith alone.
4) My faith is much older than yours. It's by the grace of God alone that I recognise that.


1. Because you don't want to answer that one, it is important because it shows that what you believe is historical and has withstood the test of time.

2. Please refer me to that then.
3. I was just reading second clemen a few days ago and came across this: St. Clement on Justification and Works

4. Can you demonstrate that for me?

Pax,

Leo

Rhology said...

RF,

The answer I want is one that cuts out the fallibility in the equation. You claim I need an infall interper to get the faith right, so I don't rely on private interp. I'm asking for the mechanism - how would that be accomplished? Bishops are not infallible. Prayer is not infallible. Why is it so hard to deliver what you say I need? (By "you", I mean RCs in general.)

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology said...

Leo,

Really quick - the documentation for the Sola Scriptura-esque views of the early church are found in Webster & King's books, _Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith_.

Richard Froggatt said...

Hi Alan,

The answer I want is one that cuts out the fallibility in the equation.

Why should I cut it out? Simply based on your objection? You disagree; but your objections and disagreements do not nullify the Roman Catholic Dogma of Infallibility.

You claim I need an infall interper to get the faith right, so I don't rely on private interp.

That’s not my claim (thanks for clarifying that too) and I think it’s a distortion of the Catholic objection to private interpretation. Catholics object when it causes division and when it usurps God given authority.

I'm asking for the mechanism - how would that be accomplished? Bishops are not infallible. Prayer is not infallible. Why is it so hard to deliver what you say I need? (By "you", I mean RCs in general.)

Let’s take your question a few steps back. I’m a Pagan and I don’t know where to turn; I believe the claims of Christianity but I’m being tossed around from one man’s denomination to the next. I want to join your church but there’re so many other churches that claim to be teaching according to the scriptures; can you prove to me that your church teaches truth?

Peace

Rhology said...

RF,

The answer I want is one that cuts out the fallibility in the equation.

Why should I cut it out? Simply based on your objection? You disagree; but your objections and disagreements do not nullify the Roman Catholic Dogma of Infallibility.


Read it again. I want an answer that cuts the FALLIBILIY (not INfallibility) out of the equation. Why? B/c you tell me all the time that my fallible personal private interpretation is inadequate. Since it is such, I want non-fallible, non-individualistic, non-private interpretation. If your mechanism provides no less than mine of all of that, where is the advantage you claim?

Richard Froggatt said...

Alan,

Maybe you should re-read my post.

Leo said...

Rology,

You never answered my questions, if you can, answer them honestly, without trying to turn it back on me without answering them:

How do you know that the gospel of Mark is scriptural, who says so?

Can you prove to me that my faith is not historical, and yours is?
Can you show me the existence of your beliefs from the death of Christ all the way to present time?

Rhology said...

RF,

I have nothing more to say on this topic without a decent answer from you.

Leo,

God says so.
I have the same way of knowing Mark is scriptural as the pious Jew in 50 BC had to know Isaiah was scriptural.
How DID the pious Jew in 50 BC know Isaiah was canonical, Leo, according to your system?


Can you prove to me that my faith is not historical, and yours is?
Can you show me the existence of your beliefs from the death of Christ all the way to present time?


Note that these are two completely different questions.
1) Yes, I can prove my faith is older than yours. We do so by exegesis of the Scriptures, which predate extra-scriptural tradition.
2) If I'm trying to prove my faith is historical, why would I worry about whether my faith was believed in 900 AD? Why wouldn't I focus on the earliest believers?

Peace,
Rhology

Leo said...

I have nothing more to say on this topic without a decent answer from you.


I asked you first.

God says so.

Where?

I have the same way of knowing Mark is scriptural as the pious Jew in 50 BC had to know Isaiah was scriptural.

You follow the pharisees?
Or do you mean rabbi's of modern times?

How DID the pious Jew in 50 BC know Isaiah was canonical, Leo, according to your system?

Uh, uh, uh, I asked the question first, answer my question.

Yes, I can prove my faith is older than yours.

There's a difference in saying you can do something, and doing it.

We do so by exegesis of the Scriptures, which predate extra-scriptural tradition.

You do it by interpretations?

Can you substantiate that?

2) If I'm trying to prove my faith is historical, why would I worry about whether my faith was believed in 900 AD? Why wouldn't I focus on the earliest believers?

Because, that means that your faith existed at that point in time, and did not cease to exist, and then was "re-founded", it proves that your faith is a living and divine faith.
I want to know if your faith existed from the time of the Apostles, all the way to now.
Answer me like you would anyone else who wants to know if your faith is truly genuine.

Richard Froggatt said...

Alan,

All you're doing is burning straw men. You say I believe one thing about your beliefs and I tell you differently and then you repeat the same thing.

I'll say it one more time. I have not said anything about your personal private interpretation. You keep trying to make a case as if I had.

Deal with what I said; not what you think I would say.

If I judged a certain race of people based on the acts of a few then I would be a racist.

I don't know what the word is in the religious sphere but you keep applying one standard to me because you think there's only one standard given by Catholic apologists.

Thanks for taking the time to get to know what it is I believe.