Thursday, February 14, 2008

Sippo vs. Madrid

Art Sippo has an interesting entry on Rome defining Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Patrick Madrid says don't do it, Art Sippo says do it. This issue hasn't been defined yet, so Roman Catholics are free to come to any stance they want to on it.

52 comments:

Carrie said...

There is a little poll in the threads of Catholic Answers Forum. Majority are against BVM as Co-Redemptrix.

------- Theo ------- said...

Mny Catholics want this to be an "official title" of Mary. I am one of the many others who believes it ought not to be. The Godfearin' fiddler posted on the current Pope's recorded opinion on this (and other matters) not long ago. I relay part of it here in case anyone is interested. Somehow, I imagine everyone will find his opinion is much better informed than is mine.

Benedict on whether the Church would officially adopt "Co-Redemptrix" as a title for Mary:

"I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula "Co-redemptrix" departs to too great an extant from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.

...

Because Mary is the the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being "with" is realized in her in exemplary fashion. But this "with" must not lead us to forget the "first" of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.

The word "Co-Redemptrix" would obscure this origin. A correct intention is being expressed in the wrong way. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language."




May you all have a blessed St. Valentine's Day.

Your bro,
--Theo

Rhology said...

I'd like to see the title adopted by the RCC. And then I'd like to see Mary taken as the 4th member of a Quadernity by the RCC.

No, I'm not kidding.

Jason said...

No, I'm not kidding.

That attitude coming from a follower of Christ boggles my mind.

I for one always hope that those I disagree with would come to a knowledge of the truth believe LESS error instead of more.

Didn't the Reformer want the Church to repent of what they saw as error? Do you think they took joy in the Church sinking deeper into, again from their point of view, apostasy?

kevin82 said...

While I don't see this happening (the new titles for Mary), it is amazing how many people are behind it, including Evangelical-to-Catholic converts like Dr. Scott Hahn. You would think that someone with his background and sensitivity to Protestant concerns would avoid these titles like the plague. Anyway, the main website supporting all this is Air Maria for those who want to read some of the justifications.

------- Theo ------- said...

Rhology,

May your walk in imitation of Christ be improved with every step. May His goodness and mercy be manifest in your life as a witness to all. May God our Father bless you with all good gifts that will enable you to be a more perfect minister of His Holy gospel and edify all who are called by His Holy Name: Christian. May your life be an example to all who would follow Jesus. May your service to His Kingdom be fruitful and blessed and may Jesus bring you into His everlasting fellowship. May the work that He has begun in you come to its promised completion, that your saintly example would inspire and your intercessions be known as effectual while you yet live in this temporal life. I pray this litany in Jesus’ Holy name, Amen.

------- Theo ------- said...

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

"If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

"Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

"Do to others as you would have them do to you.

"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that.

"And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full.

"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.

"Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.

"Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."


May He who taught us this divine message have mercy on me, a sinner.

EA said...

I would love to see the effect of this Marian designation made official; you think you're seeing over the top Marian devotion now?

GeneMBridges said...


That attitude coming from a follower of Christ boggles my mind.

I for one always hope that those I disagree with would come to a knowledge of the truth believe LESS error instead of more.

Didn't the Reformer want the Church to repent of what they saw as error? Do you think they took joy in the Church sinking deeper into, again from their point of view, apostasy?


I think given Rome has had 500 years to repent, what Rhology is saying is that he hopes they do it because it would confirm what consistent Protestants have been saying for quite some time.

I'll even go a step further and say I hope the PCUSA would just do the same on a lot of things.

True, we should hope people come to believe less error, but on the other hand, there comes a point of diminishing returns. We should also hope the simply start being honest.

I'd rather Mormons, for example, quit pretending to be Christians. I'd rather the PCUSA stop paying lip service to the Westminster Standards. I'd rather the progay theologians own up to their duplicity as some have recent begun doing. For example:

Luke Timothy Johnson, New Testament professor at Emory University, has openly admitted what few liberal Christian defenders of homosexuality will: "I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us."

Theo,

I'll just take one of the utterly acontextual uses of the words of Jesus (most of which are simply stating the true intent of the OT Law, which would certainly come down on Rhology's side, given the sheer number of imprecations within the OT alone), to reply:


"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.


You've used the text just like an atheist or a Mormon. This doesn't surprise me since consistent Romanism is no better.

Here's the rest:

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Note that this is written after the so often quoted “judge not that you be not judged” statement. One wonders how, if we are not to judge others, we are to know what is a dog or a pig? “Dog” was a common derogatory term for “Gentile” and the “pig” is an unclean animal. Of course, Jesus does not advocate calling non-believers and Gentiles “dogs,” but he is telling us to judge justly and know the difference between what is right and wrong, true and false, “clean” and “unclean,” etc.

And

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Of course, this teaching comes just a few paragraphs after the previous citation.

What's the point, if Rome would just do as Rhology suggests, it would make it just that much easier for us to identify Rome's false teaching. I'll take the actual words of Jesus to your acontextual use of them any day.

I, for one, am happy you don't think Rome should do this, but, Theo, if they do make it a de fide statement, that means you're in a fine pickle, doesn't it, since you're of the belief Rome is the One True Church. Clearly, if Rome did this, she would be, in your view in error. Would you leave Rome or would you change your views to hers? This must be quite the conundrum for you.

Rhology said...

Jason,

The key is to understand that I believe Rome to be a completely apostate church. I don't want there to be any question that the church of Jesus Christ is distinct and separate from other entities that might bear His name but not His faith. So whatever Rome (or Constantinople, or Salt Lake City, or Brooklyn, or the United "Church" of "Christ", or the Oneness Pentecostals, or the Word of Faith-ers, etc) can do to further distance itself from biblical truth, I'm pretty much all for it, barring of course a full repentance. Which isn't happening.

And thanks, Theo.

And yes, my question would be similar to Gene's. What consequence would it have upon your faith as a RC if Mary were indeed infallibly declared to be Co-Redemptrix?

------- Theo ------- said...

"...my question would be similar to Gene's. What consequence would it have upon your faith as a RC if Mary were indeed infallibly declared to be Co-Redemptrix?

Rhology and Gene, my brothers:

This is such an excellent hypothetical question, my heart actually jumped at reading it! (Don't get too excited: I have a heart condition--but still, this is a superb question.)

For the sake of discussion let's set aside the fact that such a ruling is now highly unlikely, especially with Benedict as Pope (The quote was from a time before his election.)--as given his view, he might state she should never be so named.

First, let's look at Rhology's explicit question above. Were the Church to infallibly declare that Mary shall be known as Co-redemptrix, let's assume at this point that this "Co" would nevertheless contain the understanding that this "with" is one of agency, not of origin, as Benedict said: that is, with the unique role of Jesus as the one whose act alone actually redeems. As I said before, I believe doing this would be a mistake for the same reasons Benedict cites. This language is absurdly confusing, and in my personal view if taken at face value is far too complicated to work out for the average theologian, let alone the schoolchildren that would be taught it.

In spite of my personal misgivings I would submit to the authority of the Church, because no act of prudence requires me to defy the Bishop's command and as it is not an act of idolatry (It would be horrible communication that would only facilitate misunderstanding IMHO) it would be lawful, though very difficult. Were I ever tasked to teach Catholic theology, I would indeed teach it… as carefully as possible to help avoid confusion. This would indeed by a sticky situation-especially for those who would then have to use time and effort defending the faith from without and within against such misunderstandings this would cause. The misunderstandings already caused by the informal use of this title have been bad enough.


But let’s go farther and imagine (God forbid it—literally) that the Church were to rule an abomination that any created being is actually one in being with the Father, as are the Son and the Holy Spirit: one God and True God: a fourth member of the “Holy Quadernity.” For discussion, let’s set aside as conjecture my own confidence that this simply could not happen.

Such a ruling would clearly violate prudence: Neither I nor any Christian could adopt this doctrine as truth without risking hellfire and damnation. In such cases Catholics have the right and duty to defy the bishop. It would be up to the Special Magisterium to correct him. In the event that the Magisterium would fail to correct him, it would be left to the entire body of Christ to correct. There have been rare instances when the Special Magisterium has deposed a Pope (interestingly, I believe one of the Benedicts was deposed.).

It is for this reason that I personally have great sympathy for the reformers. I know sola fide is unbiblical and in error: that fide is necessary, but it cannot be sola; yet these men (and many millions of other intelligent people today) believed it is at the very heart of the Gospel. Were I to oppose an intractable Church on a matter of prudence: of salvific import—such as elevating a being to the status of God Almighty, I could well imagine having to endure being denied the sacraments, trusting God for His grace, regardless. In all things unrelated to the heresy I would remain submitted to the bishop (including discipline), for I would not leave the Church, even if excommunicated from her sacraments. I have great sympathy for the Reformers; however, I also believe they were wrong.

If you are familiar with the history of Francis of Assisi, you might know that upon his audience with The Pope, the poor and humble monk lectured him on the effect of the excesses of his comfort and earthly ease--that he could not be silent for the sake of his very soul’s need—and he was ejected from the chamber. Francis did not leave the Church. It was not until this same pope had a disturbing dream that the Church edifice was collapsing around him while this same monk who admonished him was entered and held up the building, that he repented. The "Franciscan Reformation" was on. The Pope had Francis brought back, apologized for the ejection and authorized the order of Franciscans which still operates in charity and service today.

Speaking for myself only, were I ever faced with so terrible a situation where prudence required me to actually defy the bishop, I pray I would be more Francis than Luther. Although it is not a fair comparison: these were very different times--both men came to a point of standing, where they could do no more. One man gave up. The other did not.

The above I humbly submit as your servant and brother in Christ,
--Theo

Jason said...

Rhology/EA:

I seem to have a lot more hope for you guys than you do for us. I have yet to run into a Protestant group that is "totally apostate" and completely devoid of truth. As we and you serve the God that raises the dead, I don't think we have the option of giving up on either of us.

As long as there is breath in human lungs and the Lord has not yet returned, there is hope.

May God grant us all wisdom, light and, most importantly, mercy by his grace.

James said...

I personally don't see a need to make such a statement regarding Our Lady's title as Co-Redemptrix as a "official" proclamation by the Church. I think that the then Cardinal Ratzinger gave ample reasons as to why it is not needed. Personally I'd rather see some anathemas thrown at some of these apostate bishops spreading heresy throughout the world. I would also love to see some high level scholarship from the Vatican refuting the heretical Protestant teachings that are misleading millions of people. Just my two cents. Good day.

Rhology said...

Jason,

I invite you to take your tolerance over to Art Sippo's blog and see how far it gets you with him. I'd be interested to see the give and take.

Rhology said...

And no one's claiming RCC is totally devoid of truth. You hold to the Trinity (for now), that Jesus Christ is theanthropos, the hypostatic union, etc.

But to be completely apostate does not require that NOTHING you believe be true. It just requires that the church's teachings have no possibility of granting salvation.

Rhology said...

Sorry for the comment spamming, but see James' comment just before these three of mine:

refuting the heretical Protestant teachings that are misleading millions of people.

Jason, looks like you don't need to go anywhere to find another RC who disagrees with you. There's one right here in the combox.

BJ said...

Rhology,

But to be completely apostate does not require that NOTHING you believe be true. It just requires that the church's teachings have no possibility of granting salvation.

Am I to understand that you mean by that comment that no Catholics can obtain salvation without leaving the Catholic Church?

Peace in Christ,

BJ
Stupid Scholar

Rhology said...

No, it doesn't mean that. But you're close.

------- Theo ------- said...

"As long as there is breath in human lungs and the Lord has not yet returned, there is hope"

Well said, Jason. Hope is one of the three things that endure. Let no man tell you otherwise.

May we who are called by His name humble ourselves and pray that we also endure to the end in faith, hope and love, that we might gain the prize!

With that said... I've been neglecting my own blog. I ought to return, as I've had a nudge or two from friends to finish what I've started. Bless the Lord, for He is good and His mercy endures forever!

--Theo

Carrie said...

Jason's comment is interesting.

How much truth do you need to get to heaven? 51%? Jesus talks about the wide gate and the narrow gate - how do percentages fall out there?

You need to trust Christ 100% for your salvation. Anything less than 100% is worthless.

I agree with Rhology, I wish the RCC would go for broke. Hopefully then those who are truly saved (despite their Church's teachings) would come out from her.

BJ said...

So Rho,what does that mean?

Peace,

BJ
Stupid Scholar

BJ said...

Carrie,


You need to trust Christ 100% for your salvation. Anything less than 100% is worthless.


Would you claim that Catholics don't trust Christ 100% for salvation?

Thanks,

BJ
Stupid Scholar

Carrie said...

Would you claim that Catholics don't trust Christ 100% for salvation?

I would say that the message of the Catholic Church is not "trust Christ 100% for your salvation and nothing else".

BJ said...

Carrie,

In all sincerity, can you show me where the Catholic Church says that? I'm not at all planning on rebutting; I just want to see your support for the claim.

Thanks,

BJ
Stupid Scholar

Carrie said...

BJ,

See these two posts:

Necessary for Salvation

Cooperation in Salvation

CCC 2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."

Trusting Christ 100% for your salvation can only be through faith alone. Being baptized and observing the commandments "to attain salvation" is Trusting Christ + XYZ (not 100% Christ).

BJ said...

Thanks, Carrie, I do appreciate it.

BJ
Stupid Scholar

Lvka said...

Carrie,

why is that wrong?

Lvka said...

through faith alone

Not through faith alone, but through faith. And this faith is one that worketh through love. (Please don't try to change that).

Lvka said...

Paul argues that Abraham was saved not by the deeds of the Law [circumcision was an outward sign or symbol], but through faith (which worketh through love). [Faith devoid of love is not redemptive according to the same St. Paul: 1 Corinthians 13:2].

Jacob argues that he was saved likewise not by the deeds of the Law, but by the expression and materialization of that faith [and not by its outward sign, which might or might not correspond to an inner reality; but through an act of loving faith and faithful love, which directly expresses or stems from the existence of that reality].

This is the explanation, because it's based on their very words, not by preconceived notions which we then read into their words. :-(

The same goes for "justification": it doesn't even exist: it's a poor translation, to which an even poorer interpretation has been given. The word used there (in Romans 4) is to 'straighten', and it's a spiritual reality that took place in Abraham's soul, as true as the restoration of his physical health later on, described in the second part of the same chapter.

Again, this is the explanation: to argue as Rho has argued that "the two ["justification" and sanctification] are simultaneous" constitutes a special pleading, and it only begs the question. :-(

Come on, Carrie, please say "yes".

Carrie said...

Come on, Carrie, please say "yes".

Uh, I'm not sure I follow, but I'm sure I cannot say yes.

I have been meaning to ask you, why do you use a pic of Luther for your profile? Doesn't seem like a good fit.

Rhology said...

Oh Carrie,

You have, sadly, much to learn about the joys (and by "joys" I mean "irritations") of dealing with Lvka/Lucian. Take him seriously at your sanity's own risk.

Rho has argued that "the two ["justification" and sanctification] are simultaneous"

That's a bunch of crock. I would never say that.
Back it up - quote me saying it.



BJ,

The RCC doesn't teach the Gospel. Their 'gospel' falls under the condemnation of Galatians 1:8, as they have changed the Gospel and done the very thing Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians to counter - that one can contribute ANYthing to one's salvation. They are anathema as Paul says. I may not like it but I concede to the revealed word of God.

Peace,
Rhology

BJ said...

Rho,

First, I think your attitude towards Lvka shows a lack of charity. If you don't want to pay attention to him, fine, but to encourage someone else to follow suit shows neither patience nor kindness.

Second, let me ask you this: what would need to be taken away and/or added to the Catholic 'gospel' for it to return to The Gospel? How many errors would have to be corrected for it to return to the Truth? For the record, I am not Catholic, so as I told Carrie, I ask with all genuineness.

Finally, you said: They are anathema as Paul says. I may not like it but I concede to the revealed word of God. To be honest, your previous statement:

I'd like to see the title adopted by the RCC. And then I'd like to see Mary taken as the 4th member of a Quadernity by the RCC.

No, I'm not kidding.


implies that you do like it. After all, that was the word you used about their future lapse into more apostasy.

Thanks for the response,

BJ
Stupid Scholar

------- Theo ------- said...

Our brother Gene wrote in part:
"You've used the text just like an atheist or a Mormon. This doesn't surprise me since consistent Romanism is no better."

Dear Gene, brother in Christ and loved by He who is my Master:

I'm at a loss as to how you imagine I "used" these verses; however, being the one who posted them I can tell you authoritatively my intent and purpose.

I set down those verses as an explanation and self-admonishment that I am to act in the form of charity commanded me toward a fellow Christian who desires that those who call on the name of the Lord but are in sin should raise up a rival god to worship next to the One True and Living God. How this use is similar to that of a Mormon's or atheist’s is well beyond my poor understanding. To the best of my knowledge I "used" it as does a Christian: to encourage and edify the body of Christ and to aid in the renewal of my own mind which so often seeks its own way.

I invite you to reread what I posted in the context of the litany prayer for our brother that I posted immediately before it.

To the additional verses you also quoted I have but one response: Amen!

I humbly pray that we all may better apprehend the divine truths that God has preserved for us in Holy Scripture. May He bless you in particular, Gene, with even greater peace and understanding; and moreover, may God bless your body and spirit with divine vitality and strength for his service. May you be empowered by the Holy Spirit to be a sign of and an agent for divine healing in this wounded world, and may you be joined in joy with our gracious God in eternal fellowship in the next.

In Jesus' name I pray as your servant and brother in Him who died and rose again.
--Theo

Lvka said...

Carrie,

I just like the man, that's all. Him and Martin Luther King. (No, I'm not kidding. They were both great men).

Lvka said...

Uh, I'm not sure I follow, but I'm sure I cannot say yes.

Well, ... `t'was worth a shot anyway ... :p

Rhology said...

BJ,

My patience for mockers and irrational people is limited. As is God's. And I have run out of patience with Lvka/Lucian. You couldn't know this, so no biggie, but he has a medium-length history here and a longer one at my own blog, where he has proven himself worthy of ignoring.

As I laid out above, the criterion for becoming anathema is indicated in Galatians. If the RC teaching on salvation coincided with Galatians', then that would be a huge step. Maybe the only one.
As for how many errors before it be true, they are legion. But those are two separate questions.

I made that 1st comment precisely BECAUSE RCC is apostate. You don't and won't see me saying the same thing about, say, Methodists or Assemblies of God. Why? They're not apostate denoms. Sure, they get some things wrong, but nothing nearly so big as how to be saved.
But I want false religion to be so far away from truth that it the distinction between truth and error is beyond obvious. And you should too.


Theo,

Neither Gene (I'm pretty sure) nor I consider you a fellow Christian, so hopefully that helps explain part of it.
The use is similar b/c you quoted the psgs out of context, as LDS and atheists are fond of doing.
Hopefully that helps clarify.

Peace,
Rhology

BJ said...

Rho,

Thanks for replying. The reason I asked about this is because you keep claiming Catholics are apostate, but you have provided absolutely no grounds for that statement. You quote Galatians, saying, "See, Paul talks about a false gospel, and Rome teaches a false gospel." However, there is no support for that claim.

I phrased my last question the way I did because I think it is important to know exactly the essentials are. It is absolutely important to formulate what essentials Catholics reject, or what damning doctrines they add. Is it the Marian beliefs, Purgatory, the rejection of Sola Scriptura, or what? If you don't formulate these, then you run around, point the finger, scream "Heretic!" and do no good. Plus, you'll end up wasting a lot of time debating issues unrelated to salvation with people you are convinced are going to Hell. Why argue about Purgatory with a non-Christian is it has no basis on their salvation? That's a waste of time.

So I'll ask again. What are the essentials that Catholicism either adds to or takes away that makes them apostate?

The Lord be with you,

BJ
Stupid Scholar

Lvka said...

Paul didn't write any Gospels. (Yes, I I know that the word has a broader meaning, but still ... ).

And it's interestig how one suddenly jumps over to Galatians -- did my perversly heretical comment on Romans four strike a sensible cord after all? >:) :D

Rhology said...

BJ,

I didn't provide any grounds for it? What then was that thing about Galatians 1:8 and Paul's anathema? And did I not explain exactly what I meant? "I don't understand what you mean" is not equivalent to "You didn't provide any grounds for that".
As Paul describes in Galatians 1, one essential is the doctrine of salvation.

If you don't formulate these, then you run around, point the finger, scream "Heretic!" and do no good.

Sheesh, man. I just said THAT too! Just one comment ago. Are you just not reading my comments?

Peace,
Rhology

------- Theo ------- said...

"Neither Gene (I'm pretty sure) nor I consider you a fellow Christian, so hopefully that helps explain part of it."

Dear Rhology, brother in Christ and fellow Christian:
I cannot supply you with any more evidence of my Christianity than my testimony and the hope I am an agent of what good fruit this venue affords. By no means is my imitation of Christ perfect.

Still, I cannot begin to imagine the burden this notion works in your heart, and I pray that it does not bring you or anyone harm. May the joy of salvation in Christ protect you.


"The use is similar b/c you quoted the psgs out of context, as LDS and atheists are fond of doing.
Hopefully that helps clarify."



I'm afraid I don't know how to amend this apparent wrong—if one is to be ascribed to me in this instance. If my direct unedited quoting of a single passage from the sermon on the mount with no more commentary than applying it to myself (May Jesus have mercy on me a sinner.) is "taking scripture out of context,” then surely no person may quote any scripture without being so accused. Should I have quoted the entire sermon?


I cited a fair amount of scripture in context to illustrate my own requirements for deportment toward others--especially those who wish me ill. It was Gene who projected some particular "use" of it that even now, I do not comprehend. It would seem I quoted in context and it was he that removed it to the point that I don’t even recognize whatever it is he imagines I was saying. Please also know that it is very difficult for me to “explain” my meaning in something I have not only not said, but as far as I know, I have never so much as thought.

Clearly the context of the quote and also that of what Gene quoted help demonstrate why I am obligated by our Lord Himself and I am glad to pray for your blessing and continued transformation into the righteous image of our Master. This, as I said before, was my one and only purpose in providing this quote.

If it is out of context, please explain how, so no Christian reading this exchange should interpret it as I do and make the same mistake I am making, seeing our Lord’s words, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” as literal commands that Jesus expects us to obey.

And with that said, I again pray for you and Carrie and Gene who have each publicly attested to your desire that I and all who believe as I do should openly blaspheme God, that your joy in Christ may be full, that your every step in this life continues bringing you in closer fellowship with Jesus, our only Lord and savior, and that you come to no harm.

My brothers and sisters, may the peace of our precious Lord be with you now and forever;
I pray as your humble servant and brother in Christ Jesus who is our only Lord and Savior, one in being with the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit: One God forever and ever,
--Theo

Carrie said...

Why argue about Purgatory with a non-Christian is it has no basis on their salvation?

I just wanted to jump in an answer this from my personal point of view.

I argue against seemingly non-essentials b/c it shows the bankruptcy of the system, first. Second, I tend to focus in on points that Catholic apologists use in their arsenal that are inaccurate to varying degrees.

There is a presupposition on this blog that Roman Catholicism is not in possession of the true gospel and not a legitimate church. I don’t try to prove that, I work off of that idea as my posts are directed at Protestants. I do not expect to convince any Catholic online of what I believe (though that would be great), but my understanding of the issues has helped me in speaking with Catholics in real life. I hope that what I share online will also help other Protestants in their real life conversations.

That said, I think purgatory is related to salvation as it results from a deficient view of the atonement. Purgatory, Marian devotion, etc are all fruits of “another gospel” and as such, are worth addressing. I have spent some time trying to figure out where exactly Rome first went wrong, but it is like the chicken or the egg argument at this point, at least for me.

Anyway, my answer to you earlier is the simple answer. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. If we must be baptized and maintain our “salvation status” through practicing good works and/or avoiding mortal sin and/or obeying the commandments, then we no longer hope for righteousness simply through our faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross, we have added our own effort to the equation. This is why Rhology is recommending Galatians 1 to you – it deals with this idea directly.

Carrie said...

And with that said, I again pray for you and Carrie and Gene who have each publicly attested to your desire that I and all who believe as I do should openly blaspheme God,

Speaking only for myself, that is not exactly what I hope. My hope is that the apostasy of the RCC would be so obvious that there would be no confusion. Declaring Mary a Co-redeemer and certainly making her part of the Trinity would help in that matter.

BTW, I came across a site that is trying to elevate Mary to the level of God, supposedly through revelation. It is quite creepy.

BJ said...

Rho,

It appears that I've frustrated you, and for that I apologize. Hopefully, I can explain my questions a bit better.

Gal. 1:8 says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed [anathema]." (ESV).

Clearly, Paul is concerned about a false gospel creeping into the church, which is obviously a VERY significant matter.

Perhaps, I have missed something in your posts, but here is what I have understood you saying:
1. Rome teaches a false gospel.
2. Paul's anathema in Gal. 1:8 applies to Catholicism.
3. Catholicism is apostate.

Please correct me, if I've misread you here.

Clearly, if #1 is correct, #2 follows. However, I haven't read your support #1 or #3. I haven't seen you say, "Rome is apostate because..." or "Rome teaches a false gospel because she teaches..." This is what I would like spelled out. The closest I've seen you come is when you said, "If the RC teaching on salvation coincided with Galatians', then that would be a huge step. Maybe the only one." However, that is still quite vague. By this, do you mean Sola Fide or what?

Carrie says, "There is a presupposition on this blog that Roman Catholicism is not in possession of the true gospel and not a legitimate church. I don’t try to prove that..." My understanding of what you have written, Rho, is that you haven't tried to prove it either; you have just assumed it. Again, if I'm in error here, please show me.

What I am asking is that you prove or at the least provide some reasoning for why you think that Galatians 1 applies to Catholicism. Your claims are very significant, and if true have eternal consequences. There are many Reformed Theologians that no one would call liberal or universalistic who flatly disagree with you. Please help me understand why you are right.

Carrie's two links from before were reasons for her claim that Catholics don't trust Jesus 100% for salvation. Can you show me something similar for our discussion?

Thanks,

BJ
Stupid Theology

Rhology said...

I agree with Carrie about that.

And Carrie, what is that website? I want to see! And I'd like to ask about the revelation they're receiving. I wonder how such could be falsified given the RCC epistemology...

BJ,

Indulging the irrelevancy of this comment to the post...

Points 1-3 are correct, yes, you understand.
Points #1 and 2 need fleshing out as to WHY it applies to RCC, but I explained that above too, when I said:
"...they have changed the Gospel and done the very thing Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians to counter - that one can contribute ANYthing to one's salvation."

It's not *I* who mean Sola Fide, it's Galatians. Read chapters 1-3!
RCC adds WORKS to justification. We can partly earn merit towards our justification, both in this life and in Purgatory. The doctrine of Purg is a symptom of a greater problem.

My understanding of what you have written, Rho, is that you haven't tried to prove it either; you have just assumed it.

B/c I've dealt with it many times before.
Serious, sober question: What about Galatians' proclamation of the definition of the Gospel isn't clear to you?

There are many Reformed Theologians that no one would call liberal or universalistic who flatly disagree with you.

About what? That RCC is apostate? Or that they have the Gospel correct?
I'm familiar with J Gresham Machen's statement that RCC is still properly called "Christian", in comparison with liberalism, but that's quite a diff thing than saying that salvation is findable within RC dogma.

Peace,
Rhology

BJ said...

Oops, the signature should have said, "Stupid Scholar." Theology isn't stupid. Far from it.

Carrie,

Thanks for that. That helps me understand some of the philosophy of this blog, which I think I both agree and disagree with. :)

My point was that if Purgatory, Mariology, etc. are the fruits of a bigger issue, the main concern we should have is to uproot the main problem. I think the main difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is the issue of revelation/authority (i.e. Bible alone vs. Bible+Tradition+Magisterium). But that's probably more off topic than I already am...

In Christ,

BJ
Stupid Scholar

------- Theo ------- said...

"My hope is that the apostasy of the RCC would be so obvious that there would be no confusion. Declaring Mary a Co-redeemer and certainly making her part of the Trinity would help in that matter."

Carrie: dear sister in Christ:
Please forgive my slowness to apprehend; however, I am unable to distinguish the above from your desiring that I blaspheme the Lord our God.

May the Lord our God bless and keep you. May He cause His face to shine upon you. May he give you Peace; I most earnestly pray as your servant and brother in Christ

Rhology said...

BJ,

Haha, I missed that Stupid Theology. lol

Well, I agree that the main issue is authority. I'd say that a nearly corresponding amount of the blogposts deal directly or indirectly with that exact question - of authority, RC epistemology vs Prot epistemology, etc.
This post's content deals with just that - RC claims that its epistemology and hierarchy leads to unity that is not comparable to what Protestants enjoy. And Carrie's recent series on the canon and RC confusion on its own history touch on it as well.

Grab a cup of joe, hang around a bit. I think you'll see what I mean. :-)

Peace,
Rhology

BJ said...

Rho,

When did I say I didn't understand Galatians? I was just having difficulty understanding the grounds for your claims, but in your next-to-last past, you kindly cleared that up. Thanks!

I very well may have been drinking a cup of Joe when wrote your last post, so thanks for the warm (literally) wishes.

I've been reading this blog a lot longer than I've been posting on it. I've been reading Carrie's discussion(s) of Trent and Gary Michuta, which were appropriately timed, as I was probably half way through his book when I read her posts.

BTW, if you've discussed a lot of my questions before, can you provide links? I'm happy to read whatever... helps me avoid the work I'm supposed to do.

Oh, there are many Reformed theologians who believe that Catholicism is wrong on many points, but not completely apostate. That is what I meant.

Blessings in Christ,

BJ
Stupid Scholar

Carrie said...

And Carrie, what is that website? I want to see!

Sorry, I goofed up the link tag. Guess I really am not a genius.

Mary Is God

Carrie said...

I think the main difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is the issue of revelation/authority (i.e. Bible alone vs. Bible+Tradition+Magisterium).

This goes back to my chicken and egg reference. Where to start!

Yes, if we could fix the authority issue many would likely be released from the yoke of slavery. However, I think justification is really the dividing issue as that stricks most closely to the heart of the gospel.

BJ, these are good questions and forgive us if we have been on this merry-go-round before so we aren't always up to addressing these questions yet again. That is a downfall of blogging, new people come into the mix and would like to discuss issues we are now tired of discussing. And some topics are just too big for a combox.

Since this combox/post is getting a bit old and off-topic, let me start a new thread and maybe others will join in or we can find some older links.

BJ said...

Carrie and Rho,

I understand and sympathize with your dilemma of beating dead horses for millionth time. Like I said, I'm content with links to your old discussions. However, any and all the time you've given me thus far is more than appreciated.

Blessings in Christ,

BJ
Stupid Scholar

Algo said...

They are at it again.

" PAt madrid sez:

quote:Protestants are not infidels. Calling them that is a needless and shameful provocation, and you should stop it, Art."