Wednesday, April 14, 2010

The Catholic Champion Says: Avoid Second Vatican Council Experts


The Catholic Champion says:

"Watch out for these guys (or gals) when reading or buying Catholic books these days. Although some of what some of these theologians or authors had to say may have been OK, they have or have had a predisposition to modernism or even outright heresy, and their overall influence in my opinion, as well as many others, has been a negative one on the Church." [source]

Here's a person on the Catholic Champion list: Yves Congar

Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, (1904-95), who taught fundamental theology and ecclesiology at Le Saulchoir, a Dominican house of studies, and served as an expert for the Second Vatican Council, incorporated both historical and systematic methods in his assessment of Luther. Congar had realized a personal ecumenical vocation long before the publication of his Divided Christendom in 1937, which established fundamental principles of Catholic ecumenical thought, many of which were incorporated into the Second Vatican Council, (Congar 1988,77-82). [Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001) p. 52]

41 comments:

Matthew Bellisario said...

So what, can you not read? Did I ever say that everything he wrote was bad? You and Turretin Fan are truly nut cases. Why don't you try reading what people write from beginning to end? If you had, then you would realize that you have presented a Red Herring here just to try and attack me personally. Like I said on your earlier post, who cares?

Do you think that others are now packing their bags and leaving Rome because of your self perceived cleverness of this post, which in reality only further demonstrates your ignorance?

Turretinfan said...

"You and Turretin Fan are truly nut cases."

This seems to be the single mode whereby Bellisario aims to refute his opponents: name-calling.

Matthew Bellisario said...

If the name fits, wear it.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Even if the name fit (and it doesn't), that isn't a substitute for argumentation.

Edward Reiss said...

If anything, Matthew's ad-hominem and illogical arguments makes it look like the RCC has a really, really weak case. I mean if every argument boils down to "you guys are just stupid jerks!" (and let's not forget Matthew admitted he is a troll...) there is no there there if this is what we can expect from the Catholic "Champion".

Andrew said...

Bellisario: "You and Turretin Fan are truly nut cases."


Bellisario: "If you had, then you would realize that you have presented a Red Herring here just to try and attack me personally."

Alrighty there Matt.

Rhology said...

I wonder if Matthew B ever wonders, somewhere in the dark recesses of his soul, whether it really would be OK, just once, to submit the teachings of the Church to Scripture. Just to see what it tastes like.

Dude, don't fight the urge.

Matthew Bellisario said...

I wonder if for once Rhology would submit himself to Jesus Christ rather than the doctrine of men? You know you have the urge!

Andrew said...

Matthew, for a short period in my life I thought that submitting to Jesus Christ meant submitting to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Let me give you one example of scriptural proof that this is not true: I checked a liturgical calender and counted about a half dozen holy days of obligation. Unless I am mistaken, it is a mortal sin to miss mass on a holy day of obligation. Now consider Galatians 4:8-10, and Colossians 2:15-17.

Turretinfan said...

"I wonder if for once Rhology would submit himself to Jesus Christ rather than the doctrine of men? You know you have the urge!"

One knows the doctrines of Christ through the Scriptures that his prophets, evangelists, and apostles left us.

If only Bellisario would submit to the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament!

May God grant this, if it be his will.

-TurretinFan

Matthew Bellisario said...

First of all Galatians 4 has nothing to do with what you have argued against. Are referring to works of the law aside from the grace of God? Likewise Collossians does you no good either since it refers, as St. Augustine says, to unclean meats and other observances of the Jews and is clearly not referring to the liturgical feasts of the Church which would follow later. Here is a perfect example of why people like you should have the Scriptures taken out of your hands, so will not twist the words of Holy Writ to your own liking.

Matthew Bellisario said...

TF, "If only Bellisario would submit to the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament!"

We as Catholics submit to God's entire Word and not just parts of it. Unfortunately you take God's Written Word and twist it to your own destruction.

Andrew said...

Matthew said:
"First of all Galatians 4 has nothing to do with what you have argued against."
I respond: Does the Roman Catholic Church not bind particular days and seasons upon the conscience of her followers? Do these passages not say that this is wrong?

Matthew said: "Are referring to works of the law aside from the grace of God?"

I respond: My point exactly.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"Do these passages not say that this is wrong?"

No, where did you get that interpretation from? Do you even know who was being spoken to and for what reason in that passage? It is apparent that you do not. As I pointed out, and as St. Augustine said, these pertain to the Jews and strict works of the law outside of the grace of Christ and the Church. You are not interpreting these passages correctly. So the answer is no, they do not.

Turretinfan said...

"We as Catholics submit to God's entire Word and not just parts of it. Unfortunately you take God's Written Word and twist it to your own destruction."

No and no.

Andrew said...

Matthew, Paul says "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." I realize that he was talking about Jewish legalism. You are missing my point. What makes it okay for your Church to add it's own days of obligation? Is Jewish legalism wrong, but Roman legalism acceptable? Why should a person be consigned to Hell should they not attend mass on say, All Saints Day and not make it to confession before they die? If that isn't legalism then nothing is.

EA said...

"You and Turretin Fan are truly nut cases."

Ladies and gentlemen, this year's Art Sippo award goes to...

Matthew Bellisario said...

Andrew in case you did not know, the Jews did not have God present to them in the incarnation, and the gates of heaven were not open to them through the graces of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Comparing the Jews under the Old Law to the Church under the grace of the incarnate Son of God is not an appropriate comparison. Do you not think that we owe God the worship due to him? I am just curious about that. You are missing the entire point of these Scripture passages and you are instead interpreting them incorrectly. I don't buy it and neither did the ancient commentators on these passages like St Jerome and St. Augustine.

Andrew said...

Bellisario said: "Andrew in case you did not know, the Jews did not have God present to them in the incarnation, and the gates of heaven were not open to them through the graces of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

I respond: Thanks for the info.


Bellisario: "Do you not think that we owe God the worship due to him?"

Me: Of course I do. That is not the issue.

Bellisario: "Comparing the Jews under the Old Law to the Church under the grace of the incarnate Son of God is not an appropriate comparison."

Me: So is binding the conscience of the faithful to pre-christian, Jewish type obligations that have nothing whatever to do with the gospel of grace. Paul's whole point is that grace frees us from that sort of thing. Let me reiterate my previous question (although I know you aren't fond of actually answering other people's questions):
What makes it okay for your Church to add it's own days of obligation? Is Jewish legalism wrong, but Roman legalism acceptable? Why should a person be consigned to Hell should they not attend mass on say, All Saints Day and not make it to confession before they die?

louis said...

"the Jews did not have God present to them in the incarnation, and... the graces of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Comparing the Jews under the Old Law to the Church under the grace of the incarnate Son of God is not an appropriate comparison."

Keep in mind that Paul was speaking to Christians.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"What makes it okay for your Church to add it's own days of obligation? Is Jewish legalism wrong, but Roman legalism acceptable?"

If you would pay attention Andrew, St. Paul is talking about old Jewish man made traditions of worship which are identified very specifically. These old Jewish practices must stop because for one, some of them were only a foreshadowing of Who was to come, which would be Jesus Christ, Our Lord. The others were almost pagan in practice or done just for the sake of the law, and not for the love of God. St. Paul is clearly not talking about practices that would come under the New Covenant which would be established by Christ's own authority.

It would be your job before you make such accusations, to prove that the man made practices the Jews were observing in these passages, which were nothing but strict observances of the "law," are the same as the observances that the Catholic Church has appointed in feast days and such, given by Christ's authority to live in the grace of Jesus Christ, which supersedes and elevates man above the "law."

The law of the New Covenant is the law of faith. Obviously since there are acts that man will achieve under both "laws" the question would be whether or not these acts which the Church prescribes are virtuous acts being enacted under the New Law of faith, which in effect brings man closer to God by virtue of the authority given to the Church by Christ Himself. You have a lot of work to do Andrew before you can make this comparison of yours stick.

louis said...

"prove that the man made practices the Jews were observing in these passages, which were nothing but strict observances of the 'law,' are the same as the observances that the Catholic Church has appointed in feast days and such, given by Christ's authority."

I don't think Paul is limiting this to Jewish practices under the old law. In the Colossians passage, he mentions "worship of angels, going on in detail about visions." (2:18). What old covenant practices would this be referring to? Also, he is condemning "philosophy" (2:8), "self-made religion and asceticism" (2:23). Most people recognize that at best he is addressing some kind of Jewish syncretism, if not some early, incipient gnosticism. Either way, he is referring to something new, not simply going back to the old covenant law.

As far as "feast days and such, given by Christ's authority", it is interesting that none of this was established by the Apostles themselves, and we see no record of new 'feast days and such' recorded in Apostolic times. It's only in the apostate Roman church that we see this introduced.

What Paul says of these things is this: They have "indeed an appearance of wisdom... but they are of no value....". In other places, Paul makes clear that these things are contrary to the new covenant law of faith.

louis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
louis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Bellisario said...

"I don't think Paul is limiting this to Jewish practices under the old law."

Saint Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas all interpret these passages as pertaining to specific practices of the Jews.

Andrew said...

The Great Logician:
"If you would pay attention Andrew, St. Paul is talking about old Jewish man made traditions of worship which are identified very specifically."

Me:
Why is your Church allowed to add non-jewish, man-made traditions? Which apostle established the feast of the assumption, for instance?

The Great Logician:
"The others were almost pagan in practice or done just for the sake of the law..."

Me: Yeah, it'd be a real shame if somebody's church added semi-pagan worship practices.

The Great Logician:
"It would be your job before you make such accusations, to prove that the man made practices the Jews were observing in these passages, which were nothing but strict observances of the "law," are the same as the observances that the Catholic Church has appointed in feast days and such,"

Me: No, the burden of proof is on your church to demonstrate that it actually has the authority she has claimed for herself. Let me be clear. I don't have a problem with feast days per se. In fact, I like the idea. My problem is with the binding of the conscience to these practices with no revelatory basis for so doing. Paul says not to let your conscience be bound to these sorts of things. None of the apostles ever told us to create mandatory days of observance for the Church.

The Great Logician:
"given by Christ's authority to live in the grace of Jesus Christ, which supersedes and elevates man above the "law."

Me: I reject the idea that Rome speaks with Christ's authority.

The Great Logician:
"You have a lot of work to do Andrew before you can make this comparison of yours stick."

Me: No I don't. There is no revelatory basis upon which to bind people's conscience to feast days on pain of eternal Hell.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"No, the burden of proof is on your church to demonstrate that it actually has the authority she has claimed for herself."

No, the burden of proof is upon the one making the accusations, that is you.

"I reject the idea that Rome speaks with Christ's authority."

Yeah, we know that genius.

"Paul says not to let your conscience be bound to these sorts of things. None of the apostles ever told us to create mandatory days of observance for the Church."

No, Jesus Christ said that St Peter, and the Church that would be founded on him, and not you, has the infallible authority to bind and loose. It must be nice to make these accusations and not back them up with anything but your own opinion. You like the your buddies are a waste of time.

Rhology said...

No, the burden of proof is upon the one making the accusations, that is you.

Exactly. Andrew clearly hasn't grasped that most basic of truths - that the Roman church is the starting point, the default position.

Andrew, make it easy on yourself. Go Rome, don't go back.

Andrew said...

Matthew said:
"No, the burden of proof is upon the one making the accusations, that is you."


Me:
What I have accused the RCC of is making particular feast days binding on the conscience of her faithful. Is there some debate on that point?

Matthew aka "The Middle Man" said:

"No, Jesus Christ said that St Peter, and the Church that would be founded on him, and not you, has the infallible authority to bind and loose."

Me:
No, Matthew, The Church (not yours, the actual one), was not founded upon "You the rock" (Peter), but upon "This rock". What was that? "You are The Christ, the son of The Living God." That is the foundation of The Church.

Andrew said...

Rhology,

No. I must continue to fight against "The One True Church". Whether that is Rome, The EO Church, or some other "One True Church" is for all the "One True Churches" to figure out. Maybe the Pope, all the Orthodox Patriarchs, the Mormon Prophet, and whoever is currently heading up The Watchtower can get a spot on Monday night Raw for a battle royal. May the leader of the "One True, One True Church" win.

Rhology said...

No dude. Those guys are all false. Trust Rome. TRUST ROME!!!!!1

Matthew Bellisario said...

Once again Andrew you are the one making the outrageous claims that what Saint Paul was talking about in the Scripture passages you quoted applies to the Catholic Church and its mandatory feast days, as if we are in the same state the Jews were in to whom Saint Paul was speaking to. I ask you again to prove your accusations. I have given you the proper interpretation of the Scripture passages that you presented, yet you fail to listen.

This is how debates work. You present what you see to be evidence of your claims, and the other person refutes them with evidence to the contrary. Do you believe that just because you say so we should all believe you? The burden of proof is back upon you to prove that those Scripture passages apply as you say they apply. The ancient commentators do not agree with you. Now if you want to keep insisting that you are correct without any further substantiation then that is fine, but that is the end of your affirmative position against the Catholic church regarding the issue. You have not proven anything.

Andrew said...

Matthew said:
"Once again Andrew you are the one making the outrageous claims...as if we are in the same state the Jews were in to whom Saint Paul was speaking to."

I respond:
You are. A system based upon personal merit, and the attending/doing of particular religious rituals in order to gain/maintain good favor with God is what they had. That is also what you have. That is precisely what you have.

Matthew:
"I have given you the proper interpretation of the Scripture passages that you presented"

I respond:
You have told me what various ancient writers thought. You haven't really interpreted anything. Of course, if you did I couldn't really put a whole lot of stock in your interpretation. After all, you're just a middle man. For that matter why should I trust your fallible interpretation of anything an ECF wrote? For that matter why should I trust your fallible interpretation of the RCC's infallible interpretation of what an ECF wrote?

Matthew:
"The ancient commentators do not agree with you."

I respond:
So what? The ancient commentators held differing opinions on a good many things. Whether you like it or not, Rome doesn't have a corner on the early church. Nor does an early commentator's opinion on a particular subject close the matter. Besides, you're just a fallible middle man. I'm not so sure I can trust your interpretation of the ancient commentators.

Matthew:
"You have not proven anything."

I respond:
I know. The clear words of scripture are hardly that important as evidence for a theological claim. As long as some "early commentators" agree with you, then you win. It's the great Roman nuclear argument. When an ECF agrees with you, it proves your point. When he doesn't agree, he was speaking as a private theologian. When the ECFs disagree amongst themselves, you read your church's current teaching into the argument and claim that your doctrine agrees with the early church.

Matthew Bellisario said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Bellisario said...

"You are. A system based upon personal merit, and the attending/doing of particular religious rituals in order to gain/maintain good favor with God is what they had. That is also what you have. That is precisely what you have. "

That is a blatant lie.

"So what? The ancient commentators held differing opinions on a good many things."

A fact that you must put to the side because none of the Father's agree with you on the proper interpretation of this passage. So instead you just dismiss it. Another flaw in your argument.

"The clear words of scripture are hardly that important as evidence for a theological claim. As long as some "early commentators" agree with you, then you win."

Too bad none of the ancients agree with you. That means you have no proof that your interpretation is correct and I do. That means that your accusations are nothing but hot air. Is this the best you have Andrew? Come on chubs, bring it on! Keep making outrageous claims that you can't back up! Ha, what a joker.

Andrew said...

St. Middle Man:
"That is a blatant lie."

Council of Tent Canon 32 on Justification:

"If any one says that the
works of a man who has been justified [has received first grace]
are in such a way the gifts of God that they are not also the
good merits of the one who is justified, or that the one who is
justified does not really merit by good works, which are done by
him through the grace of God and Jesus Christ eternal life and the attainment of eternal life itself and even an increase in glory, let him be anathema."

Me: I know, I know. Grace is necessary before our works are meritorious. Blah, blah, blah. The fact of the matter is that your church teaches that salvation is earned. That's what it means to merit something. It means you deserve it. So I guess the council fathers at Trent are guilty of a blatant lie.

St. Middle Man:
"...none of the Father's agree with you on the proper interpretation of this passage."

Me:
I haven't disputed the interpretation of the ECFs. Of course the passages refer to Jewish ceremonies and legalism. What you and I are arguing about is the proper application. There is no revelatory warrant for adding non-jewish legalism to Christianity. You guys make the claim that it is not only warranted, but necessary. Why should I believe that?

St. Middle Man:

"Too bad none of the ancients agree with you."

Me:

Assuming that it's true that "none of the ancients" agree with me, the question is; so what? The ancients are not infallible. The scripture is.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"I know, I know. Grace is necessary before our works are meritorious. Blah, blah, blah. The fact of the matter is that your church teaches that salvation is earned. That's what it means to merit something. It means you deserve it. So I guess the council fathers at Trent are guilty of a blatant lie."

You contradict yourself. Just saying blah, blah, blah is not an argument. You need to prove your objection with rational argumentation and substance, not just blah, blah, blah.

"Assuming that it's true that "none of the ancients" agree with me, the question is; so what? The ancients are not infallible. The scripture is."

Obviously Scripture on its own is not preserving its proper interpretation. No it is not because the ancients simply do not agree with your interpretation. I can claim the same type f appeal to Scripture that you are claiming; Scripture is not referring to Catholic feast days. Yo say it is, prove it! Just saying so is not an argument. I can prove that many Fathers of the Church interpreted the passage in the Catholic sense. Where is your evidence on your interpretation other than your own opinion?

Andrew said...

St. Middle Man:

"You contradict yourself."

Me:
Where? How?

St. Middle Man:

"Just saying blah, blah, blah is not an argument."

Me:
Blah, blah, blah was not my argument. If you'll recall I showed how your claim that my claim about the Roman "gospel" being a system of merit is a "blatant lie" seems to fly in the face of the actual dogmatic statements of your church. Of course, I can't really infallibly interpret those statements so I could be wrong. For, you see, I am not on the same level as St. Middle Man, the great doctor of the church.

St. Middle Man:

"I can claim the same type of appeal to Scripture that you are claiming; Scripture is not referring to Catholic feast days."

Me:
I never said it was referring to Catholic feast days. I applied the underlying concept of the conscience being free from that kind of thing. Really, if you can't even interpret me correctly, how can I trust you to interpret divine revelation correctly? For that matter how can I trust you to interpret the infallible interpretation of divine revelation correctly?

St. Middle Man:

"You say it is, prove it!"

Me:

No I didn't. Again, I applied the principle to Catholic teaching. In fact, I have actually stated that I don't disagree with your interpretation. I am simply arguing that the principle applies to your church's binding of people's consciences to feast days etc...
How often do I need to say that before you understand?

St. Middle Man:

"I can prove that many Fathers of the Church interpreted the passage in the Catholic sense."

Me:

I think I answered this one already.

St. Middle Man:

"Where is your evidence on your interpretation other than your own opinion?"

Me:

My evidence is scriptures claim that our consciences are not bound to rituals, feasts, and the like. Where is your evidence outside your church's arbitrary claims to infallibility and the corner market on the ECFs?

Honestly Matthew (and I'm not being snarky here), I have had more rational discussions with my 12, 10, and 6 year old children. You have not even attempted to comprehend my actual argument. In fact, that is pretty much standard operating procedure for you. So, at least for now, I am done with you. There may come a time on the future when I just can't resist, but I know rational Catholics with whom I can argue. I'll talk to them instead.

Matthew Bellisario said...

"If you'll recall I showed how your claim that my claim about the Roman "gospel" being a system of merit is a "blatant lie" seems to fly in the face of the actual dogmatic statements of your church."

Yet you conveniently left out the rest of the Canons at Trent which put the quote in the context of grace, and then to counter that you just said, "blah, blah, blah." Sorry, that kind of garbage doesn't work with me.

"I never said it was referring to Catholic feast days. I applied the underlying concept of the conscience being free from that kind of thing. Really, if you can't even interpret me correctly..."

You are a liar like your other friends. Did you not say this? "Let me give you one example of scriptural proof that this is not true: I checked a liturgical calender and counted about a half dozen holy days of obligation. Unless I am mistaken, it is a mortal sin to miss mass on a holy day of obligation. Now consider Galatians 4:8-10, and Colossians 2:15-17." You are referring to the liturgical calendar here in which the Catholic Feast days are the Holy Days of Obligation. So, no I did not misinterpret you. I am done with this after this post, so as usual you can get in the last word and claim victory. I do not talk with people who say they never were referring to Catholic Feast days, yet that is exactly what you referred to in the above quote.

"My evidence is scriptures claim that our consciences are not bound to rituals, feasts, and the like."

No, your evidence was refuted because the text you used only refers to the Jews under the Old Law, not the Church under the New Covenant. So no, you did not prove anything.

"Honestly Matthew (and I'm not being snarky here), I have had more rational discussions with my 12, 10, and 6 year old children. You have not even attempted to comprehend my actual argument."

It seems to me that you are probably teaching your children to be liars and deceivers like you are, and when someone actually takes your claim to task you run. Simply put, the passages of Scripture that you quoted do not apply to the Catholic Church defining the Feast days on the liturgical calender as Holy days of Obligation.

Turretinfan said...

"Yet you conveniently left out the rest of the Canons at Trent which put the quote in the context of grace, and then to counter that you just said, "blah, blah, blah." Sorry, that kind of garbage doesn't work with me."

LOL

Let's see how well Bellisario can read. Here's the canon as Andrew presented it:

Council of Tent Canon 32 on Justification:

"If any one says that the
works of a man who has been justified [has received first grace]
are in such a way the gifts of God that they are not also the
good merits of the one who is justified, or that the one who is
justified does not really merit by good works, which are done by
him through the grace of God and Jesus Christ eternal life and the attainment of eternal life itself and even an increase in glory, let him be anathema."

Oh ... yeah ... totally missing that context of grace. :eyeroll:

Could Bellisario express an opinion that shows less evidence of ability to read?
-TurretinFan

Andrew said...

TurretinFan said:

"Could Bellisario express an opinion that shows less evidence of ability to read?"


I respond:

I wish I could tell whether the issue was ability or willingness. My guess is the latter leading to the former. St. Middle Man missed my point entirely, and didn't really seem interested in dealing with what I actually said. He insists that I said the passages over which we argued refer to Catholic feast days. Of course I never said that. I simply applied the principle. Isn't that what the biblical interpreter is supposed to do? It's almost as if he would rather argue against a position that I didn't take (in fact I granted his point about the passages not referring specifically to RC feast days, didn't I?) because the one he ascribed to me is easier to argue against. Maybe I should have been calling him St. Strawman instead?
Oh well. I have teeth to pull so I am going to stop arguing with St. Middle Strawman for the foreseeable future.