VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Francis urged the Catholic Church's top theologians on Friday to listen to what ordinary Catholics have to say and pay attention to the "signs of the times," rather than just making pronouncements in an academic vacuum.
Francis, whose near-disdain for theologians is well-known, told the International Theological Commission that they must "humbly listen" to what God tells the church by understanding Scripture but also by taking into account how ordinary Catholics live out their faith.
"Together with all Christians, theologians must open their eyes and ears to the signs of the times," Francis said.
Made up of leading theologians from around the world, the commission is a permanent advisory body to the Vatican's theological and orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Both are headed by Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, a conservative German theologian appointed by the theologian pope, Benedict XVI.
The congregation is known for disciplining Catholic theologians whose writings or teachings stray from church doctrine. It has been criticized for issuing these notifications without consulting the academics or giving them a chance to defend their work.
Francis has frequently complained that theologians are holding back the church in its mission to evangelize and work with other Christian communities. Just this past weekend, returning from Turkey, Francis spoke about the need for the Catholic and Orthodox churches to walk together on the path of unity.
"What are we waiting for? For the theologians to reach agreement? That day will never come, I assure you," Francis said. "I'm skeptical."
Francis has instead spoken frequently about what he calls "theology on its knees" - a more merciful type of theology that isn't focused so much on rules and regulations but meeting the faithful where they are to help them reach holiness.
---
Posts
49 comments:
very interesting; I wonder if he is trying to get everybody ready for some big changes.
I didn't search for the Pope's words in context, and the defenders of Rome keep saying Francis is being misinterpreted and misquoted. The thing that jumped out at me was what I placed in "bold" above:
"Francis, whose near-disdain for theologians is well-known, told the International Theological Commission that they must "humbly listen" to what God tells the church by understanding Scripture but also by taking into account how ordinary Catholics live out their faith."
Theologians must listen to laymen as to how to interpret Scripture? Is that how an infallible interpretation is arrived at? This is a blatant blueprint for anarchy.
Maybe "interpret Scripture" is too much my Protestant thinking. Revise to say:
Theologians must listen to laymen as to how to understand Christian theology and the will of God? Is that how an infallible interpretation is arrived at? This is a blatant blueprint for anarchy.
And also from the article:
""What are we waiting for? For the theologians to reach agreement? That day will never come"
Umm... perhaps maybe the Pope could actually use his infallible powers to settle some issues? Nah, best to let Roman Catholic theologians fight over interpreting Scripture.
Theologians must listen to laymen as to how to understand Christian theology and the will of God? Is that how an infallible interpretation is arrived at? This is a blatant blueprint for anarchy.
More like that is how an interpretation of the magisterium, infallible or not, may be arrive at, with CA filling in for the reticent official magisterium.
Francis versus Pope Pius X:
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Meanwhile, the lack of a IM does not mean evangelical pastors can go off the rails without censure and losing their flock, like so many RC clergy can.
Whatever Happened to Rob Bell? Ask Oprah
Rob Bell was once the evangelical It Boy, the hipster pastor with the thick-rimmed glasses and the skinny jeans...
And then he went to hell.
In 2011, his book "Love Wins" pushed the evangelical envelope on the nature of heaven, hell and salvation. Many dismissed him as a modern-day heretic, unwilling to embrace traditional evangelicals beliefs about the hereafter...
.
Bell had gone too far. "Farewell, Rob Bell," retired megachurch pastor John Piper famously tweeted.
Now, the man who built a church of an estimated 10,000 people isn't even attending an organized church. Instead, he surfs the waves near Hollywood and has teamed up with the goddess of pop theology, Oprah Winfrey. - http://www.charismanews.com/culture/46333-whatever-happened-to-rob-bell-ask-oprah
A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never.
28 percent judged that is always was sin for married couples to use artificial birth control, 25 percent often, 40 percent never.
49 percent affirmed that it was always a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, often, 25 percent; and never, 19 percent.
The survey also found that 80% of Roman Catholic priests referred to themselves as “mostly” heterosexual in orientation, with 67% being exclusively heterosexual, 8% leaning toward heterosexual, 5% completely in the middle, and 6% leaning toward homosexual and 9% saying they are homosexual, for a combined figure of 15% on the homosexual class. Among younger priests (those ordained for 20 years or less) the figure was 23%.
7 percent of the priests said "definitely" , and 27% said "probably," a homosexual subculture'--defined as a `definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary'--exists in their diocese or religious order. - Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf
43% of Catholics overall (and 36% of weekly attendees) affirmed they look to Catholic teachings and statements made the pope and bishops to form their conscience on what is morally acceptable. - http://cara.georgetown.edu/beliefattitude.pdf
99% of Protestant pastors who hold to very conservative theology strongly disagree that homosexual marriage should be legal, with 98% also describing themselves as pro-life, and of such 98 percent strongly agree with the statement "Our church considers Scripture to be the authority for our church and our lives." - LifeWay Research; http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-share-views-on-gay-marriage-abortion
More: http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html#TOC
A couple of quick things -
First of all, there are 22 Eastern rite churches within the Catholic Church. Gentlemen like Pope Francis and Father Mitch Pacwa have done numerous Eastern rite masses. They both love the Eastern church. So, yes Pope Francis would love to see the Orthodox come back into the fold.
Pope Francis has been a Parish priest for years and has more of a pastors heart. Some say that he would like to finish as a parish priest again.
None of the Popes are ever going to change church dogma and go against the teachings of Christ and scripture. They, all pretty much say the same things, but the say it differently.
Like Father Mitch Pacwa says about the media regarding the Pope; don't believe the media, they don't know how to read.
My parish priest echoes Al Kresta; the media reports what they hope the Pope is saying, not what he actually says.
None of the Popes are ever going to change church dogma and go against the teachings of Christ and scripture. They, all pretty much say the same things, but the say it differently.
Yes, we know that infallibly defining a Bible verse or a doctrine is the lowest priority of the Magisterium. The papacy would rather spend its time on things that are far more important than the very words of God almighty.
Hi James -
Defining Scripture is of the highest priority, that is why the Church has Sacred Tradiion (including the Early Church Fathers) and the Magisterium.
It seeks to prevent the mess that we now see brought on by the Reformation; some 40,000 ecclesial Christian communities all under their own authority, all adhering to sola scriptura.
Hi James -Defining Scripture is of the highest priority, that is why the Church has Sacred Tradiion (including the Early Church Fathers) and the Magisterium.
My apologies. Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm sending off an e-mail right now to James White, Steve Hays, Tfan, and a few others to let them know we're misinformed.
When you have a chance, please send me over the list of the most recent infallible interpretations of Scripture, the church fathers, and tradition. I'll take whatever Rome has said infallibly in the last 6 months.
My parish priest echoes Al Kresta; the media reports what they hope the Pope is saying, not what he actually says.
Meaning as well that conservative media reports what they hope the Pope is saying, not necessarily what he actually says.
It may seem hard to spin such as below into conformity with RC teaching, but i have seen them attempt it, as they insist on looking to men above that which is written.
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! ...‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there." -Pope Francis — http://www.newyorker.com/news/hendrik-hertzberg/father-the-atheists-even-the-atheists
It is therefore not surprising that he would make Islamic fundamentalists akin to Christian fundamentalists:
The Argentine pope..said it was wrong for anyone to react to terrorism by being "enraged" against Islam.
"You just can’t say that, just as you can’t say that all Christians are fundamentalists. We have our share of them (fundamentalists). All religions have these little groups," he said. -http://news.yahoo.com/pope-visits-iconic-religious-sites-istanbul-073647316.html
Then you have the spin on what proselytism means in order to absolve the pope from censuring what RC apologists do:
Don't proselytize; respect others' beliefs. "We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: 'I am talking with you in order to persuade you,' No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing," the pope said. — http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1403144.htm;
Which is consistent with that the understanding of his statement that full communion with the EOs “does not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation,” and which instead is based upon the social gospel. http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/11/30/francis-rolls-out-social-gospel-case-for-catholicorthodox-unity/?s_campaign=crux:rss
The above is in addition to the reconstructed recollections of questionable value (http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dolan-confirms-error-scalfari-interview - yet published with Vatican permission and which the pope seemed happy with as he granted Scalfari two more interviews):
"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us."
"Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good."
"And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place." - http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/10/01/news/pope_s_conversation_with_scalfari_english-67643118/?ref=search
Conservative RCs even construe Pope Francis as being against common Eucharistic celebrations with Protestants based on words which are more reasonably understood as seeking to ensure religious freedom of expression for all, which means they should not be compelled into conformity, including Catholics being able express their "Eucharistic faith."
Defining Scripture is of the highest priority, that is why the Church has Sacred Tradiion (including the Early Church Fathers) and the Magisterium.
That is simply false, as not only does Scripture itself have not the highest position, as it only assuredly consists of and means what the supreme magisterium says it does, but few very texts have been officially defined.
Therefore RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt or come up with various interpretations of Scripture in seeing to support Rome's tradition of men, often engaging in egregious eisegetical extrapolations to support such things as Rome's perpetual assured (if conditional) magisterial infallibility.
It seeks to prevent the mess that we now see brought on by the Reformation; some 40,000 ecclesial Christian communities all under their own authority, all adhering to sola scriptura.
Blaming the Reformation for the diversity of the typical RC definition of "Protestantism" that is so diverse that you could drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian 747 thru it is like blaming America's founders for liberal interpretations of the Constitution.
The most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation was that of holding Scripture supreme as the wholly inspired and accurate assured word of God, versus the magisterium being supreme as possessing assured infallibility.
Fundamental evangelicals - these being those who hold most strongly to the aforementioned view of Scripture - are marked as characteristically holding to certain core Truths, with varying degrees of agreement being allowed in other areas.
And which is realized without a centralized infallible magisterium of men, which is never how God provided for Truth and its discernment and preservation. God did raise up men who spoke and wrote His word, but not as an office being perpetually infallible.
Thus historically fundamentalist have overall contended for clearly Scriptural core Truths, most of them being held in common with Rome, and a few others, and against those who deny them, and likewise against Catholic traditions of men.
And which group are the most unified significant religious group in America in core values and the most core beliefs, in clear contrast to RCs overall (the relative few among the latter who closely hold to the basically literal view of Scripture, like evangelical, indicative of authority, are likewise conservative).
RCs themselves are to hold to certain core teachings, with varying degrees of agreement being allowed in other areas.
However, RC unity is not only limited but it is largely on paper, with the fruit of Rome being quite diverse and unlike evangelicals, largely liberal in core values and even some basic beliefs. And which includes schisms and sects due to the fact that teachings of Rome can themselves be subject to interpretation.
If separated into different churches you could also potentially have thousands, but due to the basic sanction of such diverse belief, with Rome treating even proabortion prosodomy public figures and followers as members in life and in death;
And that of two core, naturally appealing teachings - that of a supreme king/pope to look to and the culture this supports, and ritually communally consuming something physical (that is purported to convey spiritual life) - then Rome is made of a most diverse community of people.
Yet as with classic evangelicals, the strongest unity are those who are most committed to doctrinal purity, but likewise they also are the most divisive.
Lloyd said:
"It seeks to prevent the mess that we now see brought on by the Reformation; some 40,000 ecclesial Christian communities all under their own authority, all adhering to sola scriptura."
Roman Catholics are still using this lie (only with 40k instead of 25, 30, or 33k denominations)? What a way to strengthen a position. Build a straw man and knock it down. The number of denominations has been proven wrong for some time now. If you don't believe me, then look up Eric Svenden's study of a book by David A. Barrett about Christian denominations.
"Defining Scripture is of the highest priority, that is why the Church has Sacred Tradiion (including the Early Church Fathers) and the Magisterium."
It's hard not to laugh out loud when reading comments like this.
How many verses has the RCC infallibly defined? Has the RCC determined whether the Creation account took place during a literal 7 day week or over longer periods of time? Who defends the "traditional" Mosiac authorship of the Pentateuch anymore in the RCC? Both JP2 and Benedict XVI have subscribed to a Mosiac "editorial role" but not actual authorship.
Modern RCC scholarship denies the Pauline authorship of many of the NT Epistles. Trent defines the Pentateuch as being the authored by Moses and Hebrews as being authored by Paul. Does anyone defend or even accept the Pauline authorship of Hebrews within the RCC anymore?
Sure, "defining Scripture is of the highest priority " of the RCC. Whatever.
I never stated that the Catholic Church takes a position on every passage in Scripture. It doesn't, nor does it claim to. When the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals, it is infallible. On matters such as science, astronomy, the Church is not infallible.
The Church's teachings are infallible. The Church can update and refine the explanations of dogmas and doctrines so Catholics can understand them better.
Christ established and gave the authority to one Church, not a bunch of them, 2000 years ago. Since the Reformation, the numerous (and they are springing up all over my neighborhood) ecclesial Christian communities, all under their own authority, all sola scriptura. They don't agree on eschatology, soteriology, the Sacraments, commandments etc. Some ordain gay ministers and women pastors.
Many of the sola scriptura bunch don't even agree agree on the nature of the Trinity. Many, without even knowing it subscribe to the ancient heresy of Nestorianism.
Walter Martin (a key theologian of sola scriptura) said that Mary gives Jesus only his human nature. He even denied the eternal Sonship of Christ. He said that Christ was not eternal Son and that God is not eternal Father. So, Martin loses the Father and the Son.
Eric Svendsen say's that some of Jesus is God and that Mary is the mother of only the non-God part of Jesus in his book "Evangelical Answers." Mr. Svendsen divides Christ into two persons. He allows for change in one of the three divine persons of the Trinity, which is condemned in the Council of Ephesus.
All sola scriptura adherents follow the authority of their particular leader; whether Luther, James White, Calvin, Chuck Smith, EA or even Zipper. Each is his own authority. Each is his own reformer and interprets the Scriptures on how he sees fit. If he does not like his church, well fine and dandy, he can just start his own. Anything goes and is tolerated, just so it is not Catholic.
"When the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals, it is infallible."
Let's start with this since most of the rest of what you wrote didn't address what I wrote.
When Trent defines the books of Scripture and refers to the "five books of Moses", does that constitute a teaching on a matter of faith? Likewise, when Trent enumerates the letters of Paul by name including Hebrews and numbers those letters as "fourteen", does that constitute a teaching on a matter of faith?
Lloyd said:
"I never stated that the Catholic Church takes a position on every passage in Scripture. It doesn't, nor does it claim to. When the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals, it is infallible."
Then what did you mean when you said this:
"Defining Scripture is of the highest priority, that is why the Church has Sacred Tradiion (including the Early Church Fathers) and the Magisterium."
Definig Scripture is a matter of faith.
Then you say this:
"Since the Reformation, the numerous (and they are springing up all over my neighborhood) ecclesial Christian communities, all under their own authority, all sola scriptura."
It's nice to see that there are churches springing up in your area. In my area, churches are closing. These are hard times for us and our local population continues to leave.
Also, you must be very busy making sure that all of the churches that have been establish subscribe to Sola Scriptura. I know that from many scholar's studies that the majority of "denominations" do not subscribe to SS.
As I have said in the past. Put your first and last name behind your words.
I am not going to take my time in responding to an EA or a zipper.
We just had a politician in Phoenix voted out for being a chicken and posting fake Internet names. He was spotted behind door number two.
"As I have said in the past. Put your first and last name behind your words.
I am not going to take my time in responding to an EA or a zipper."
Translation: I have nothing to counteract your argument with.
"I am not going to take my time in responding to an EA or a zipper."
You already have. Sheesh, you can't make this stuff up.
Why should defining *new* infallible teachings be a higher priority than teaching already-defined truths?
Why should theologians spend their time working on theological nuances without listening to or taking into consideration how those nuances would impact ordinary people?
You highlighted the Pope's saying that theologians aren't going to agree... do you see any evidence that suggests otherwise?
Why should defining *new* infallible teachings be a higher priority than teaching already-defined truths?
Tell you what, I'll take a lower level of priority over what priority Rome has now in regard to Scripture. Rome hasn't even told her people yet what “for the sake of our salvation” means or doesn't mean in Dei Verbum (is the entirety of Scripture without error, or only those sections of Scripture that teach about salvation?)
Why should theologians spend their time working on theological nuances without listening to or taking into consideration how those nuances would impact ordinary people?
Because, from my perspective, I could care less what "ordinary people" think about Scripture, and theologians should likewise not care. What's important is: what does the text say? What is God saying?
You highlighted the Pope's saying that theologians aren't going to agree... do you see any evidence that suggests otherwise?
I highlighted that because the defenders of Rome are quick to say Protestants don't agree, but here we have the Pope saying Rome's theologians will never agree. The highlight was just to demonstrate the double standards put forth by Rome's defenders.
Lloyd said:
"As I have said in the past. Put your first and last name behind your words.
I am not going to take my time in responding to an EA or a zipper."
I think EA said it best, you already have. Plus, I've said it before, I like my internet handle. It's a badge of honor for me and if you don't want to reply, then that's fine. But I will continue to present your contradictions, and the people on here will see that you are unable to answer them. This is the internet Lloyd. Some people use their real names and some don't. You're the only Roman Catholic that I've ever seen on the internet who runs away from a debate because they will only interact with people who display their (assumed) real names. I better warn guy fawkes not to talk to you.
Anyways, it would be nice if you could clarify your contradiction Lloyd.
James -
You state that you don't care what "ordinary people" think about Scripture, you only care about the meaning of the text. Since the Reformation, ordinary folks are starting their own churches based on what they think the text is saying under their own authority. Almost none of them agree on anything.
A look at some Pope Francis quotes -
Pope Francis is trying to get the message out that the Catholic Church is a loving church that cares for the poor. Love of God. Love of neighbor. In the process he is playing the media like a bunch of nit wits.
The Pope states that atheists can go to heaven and they should do good things according to their conscience. Jesus said that prostitutes can go to heaven. So, why not atheists? All they have to do is believe in Christ and confess their sins. The Pope tells them to do good. What should he tell them to do bad?
The Pope says that he doesn't have the right to judge homosexuals. He did not tell them that they did not have to confess their sinful lifestyle. At a Catholic men's conference, where there are 40 priests on hand to hear confessions (John 20:22-23), and the line is two blocks long of men wanting to confess their sins, do you think that the Pope would go against Church teaching and tell them, "no need to confess"?
A couple of quotes from Pope Francis: On abortion: "Every child not born, but unjustly condemned to be aborted has the face of Jesus, the face of our Lord."
On Argentina's gay marriage bill, the Pope says this, "It's an attempt to destroy God's plan. This legislation bill is a move by the father of lies to confuse and deceive the children of God."
When the Pope is talking about theologians messing things up, he is talking about the Orthodox, which already have the sacraments and Apostolic succession, among many other things in common with Rome. There are already 22 Eastern rite churches within the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis wouldn't be Pope if he hated theologians. He loves St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, among many great Catholic theologians.
"(is the entirety of Scripture without error, or only those sections of Scripture that teach about salvation?)"
Is this an evolution thing? I don't remember ever seeing any indication of the Catholic Church admitting that it saw any portion of Scripture as an error—it's usually at pains to claim that appearance of errors is due to incorrect interpretation.
Although I haven't read the whole thing, the language of Dei Verbum doesn't seem especially open to the charge that portions of Scripture might be erroneous: "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit". I think it would be difficult to go from "all that the writers affirm" to "but not some of it". (Not that theologians, Catholic ones included, might not try.)
"Because, from my perspective, I could care less what "ordinary people" think about Scripture, and theologians should likewise not care. What's important is: what does the text say? What is God saying?"
First off, do you believe the Holy Spirit guides proper interpretation of Scripture? And if so, do theologians have more of the Holy Spirit than ordinary people? Matthew 11:25 comes to mind.
Second off, it didn't seem to me, from the couple quotes of the Pope's words that the article gave, that he was saying ordinary people should guide interpretation of Scripture, so much as that theologians should listen to ordinary people AND to Scripture. I would suspect, given his overall approach to things, that he had in mind that theologians should look at real-life concerns when considering which topics to discuss, and take into consideration real-life effects of theological phrasings, which in practice tends to be much more complex than some theologians realize, especially when they live in an "abstract vacuum".
"The highlight was just to demonstrate the double standards put forth by Rome's defenders."
Ah. That makes sense.
"Since the Reformation, ordinary folks are starting their own churches based on what they think the text is saying under their own authority. Almost none of them agree on anything."
Are you saying that ordinary people can't come to a correct understanding of Scripture on their own? Even to the understanding of what is necessary for salvation?
"Pope Francis is trying to get the message out that the Catholic Church is a loving church that cares for the poor. Love of God. Love of neighbor. In the process he is playing the media like a bunch of nit wits."
So, love your neighbor while playing them like nit wits? Isn't this a contradiction? This doesn't sound very charitable.
"The Pope states that atheists can go to heaven and they should do good things according to their conscience. Jesus said that prostitutes can go to heaven. So, why not atheists? All they have to do is believe in Christ and confess their sins. The Pope tells them to do good. What should he tell them to do bad?"
For the record, I believe that any sinner can be saved and go to Heaven. Of course, that's only my personal understanding of Scripture, which almost no one else agrees with... All that atheists have to do is believe in Jesus and they'll stop being atheists. I think we can all agree on that. It's axiomatic, in fact.
"The Pope says that he doesn't have the right to judge homosexuals. He did not tell them that they did not have to confess their sinful lifestyle. At a Catholic men's conference, where there are 40 priests on hand to hear confessions (John 20:22-23), and the line is two blocks long of men wanting to confess their sins, do you think that the Pope would go against Church teaching and tell them, "no need to confess"?"
Not telling someone that they don't have to do something is not the same thing as telling them that they do have to do something. I doubt that the Pope would discourage confession at a Catholics Men's conference either, but what is the point? How does that point dovetail into the Pope's statement? Is he recommending that homosexuals attend confession? If so, what is the connecting event? Sacramental confession is an in-house affair in that it is designed for use by those initiated into the Catholic Church. What if the homosexual in question is not Catholic? I don't recall any qualifiers that limited his statements to the baptised.
Regarding listening to laity, this brief (and insufficient) online survey is somewhat interesting:
http://ligonier-static-media.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/thestateoftheology/TheStateOfTheology-Infographic.jpg
Anna said..."(is the entirety of Scripture without error, or only those sections of Scripture that teach about salvation?)"Is this an evolution thing? I don't remember ever seeing any indication of the Catholic Church admitting that it saw any portion of Scripture as an error—it's usually at pains to claim that appearance of errors is due to incorrect interpretation
See:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/dei-verbum-strikes-again.html
Ah. Fascinating. I still think it's an overall more important use of time for the Church (any church) to preach the stuff we already know—if there's anything to PeaceByJesus's infographic, it definitely shows the need for that—than to work out fine details. Biblical inerrancy can sound vitally urgent, but since "having to do with salvation" covers most or all of Scripture in the first place, the practical difference between the two positions is fairly minor and not of nearly as much relevance to helping people grow in Christ as, say, achieving basic familiarity with what Scripture says in the first place. Mind you, I'm not against theologians continuing to debate whatever nuances they like; but I think I can see where the pope is coming from, in terms of encouraging theologians to "humbly listen" to ordinary Catholics, too.
"having to do with salvation"
I would venture to say that this phrase hasn't really been defined by Rome in regard to Biblical passages, so you really can't know which verses are meant.
Now, why can't the Magisterium take a few days and work this out? I think the reason is the very words of almighty God are not a high priority.
"having to do with salvation"
I would venture to say that this phrase hasn't really been defined by Rome in regard to Biblical passages, so you really can't know which verses are meant.
Now, why can't the Magisterium take a few days and work this out? I think the reason is the very words of almighty God are not a high priority.
It is because her words have primacy as possessing assured veracity. And as there is conflict within the magisteriuk reflected in what post V2 teachings conveys versus pre V2 teachings, it is best to allow ambiguity rather than admit the conflict.
Sometimes that can be wise when one is not sure of something (I have done so), but it militates against the assertion that the magisterium to be looked to as the sure answer to the problems of interpretation, as the alternative to ascertaining the veracity and understanding of teaching in the light of the evidence.
This does not equate to the magisterium having no place or authority, as its rulings are to be considered the official word on matter, but not as being infallible and precluding justifiable dissent, which is what the church began with.
The Church's teachings are infallible. The Church can update and refine the explanations of dogmas and doctrines so Catholics can understand them better.
Christ established and gave the authority to one Church,...
But all of which is mere argument by assertion. What is the premise for this assertion?
Is it that unity means authenticity, and even that RCs overall are more unified than those who hold most strongly to the more evangelical view of Scripture?
See your own American Catholic Laity Poll, 2011 and Catholicism and Evangelicalism: doctrinal, moral and political views
Authenticity and what one believes is not based upon mere paper professions, but what one does and effects. (Mt. 7:20 Ja. 218)
And or is you argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God), and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium?
. Since the Reformation, the numerous (and they are springing up all over my neighborhood) ecclesial Christian communities, all under their own authority, all sola scriptura. They don't agree on eschatology, soteriology, the Sacraments, commandments etc. Some ordain gay ministers and women pastors.
Wrong, as not all do operate under SS, which effectually produces a stronger real unity is basic beliefs and values, which the liberal Prot churches do not hold Scripture as the wholly inspired word of God and accurate in all it teaches, but tend to hold more to the liberal scholarship you church has sanctioned for decades, right in your own NAB Bible for decades.
You cannot have SS when the very authority of scripture is impugned.
Other groups effectively operate more according to the Roman model for authority, in which the leadership presumes a level of assured veracity above that which is written, and under which the greatest heresies are found.
And it is those who operate under the Scripture model for determination of Truth, that being based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, that have been foremost defenders of Scriptural core truths we both concur on, while contending against those who deny them, as well as the inventions and deformations of Rome .
Walter Martin (a key theologian of sola scriptura) said that Mary gives Jesus only his human nature. He even denied the eternal Sonship of Christ. He said that Christ was not eternal Son and that God is not eternal Father. So, Martin loses the Father and the Son
So it seems you hold Mary gave Jesus His Divine nature? And are you saying Martin denied the eternal preexistence of Christ and of God, or that he was wrong in holding that Christ "is never called Son at all prior to the incarnation," and "the word 'Son' definitely suggests inferiority," and that "the term ]Son] itself is a functional term, as is the term ]Father] and has no meaning apart from time." -The Kingdom of the Cults, pp. 117-118
I think he was wrong in denying that Christ was the Son from eternity past, and which denies what the vast majority of SS types see Scripture teaching, and the statement of in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father."
However, he was not a pope whom men have to heed him as men had to towards the pope in exterminating the heretics from the land. And not even any magisterium to which God enjoined obedience to in Scripture.
Eric Svendsen say's
So you want to play the Internet apologist game?
Mark Shea accuses Robert Sungenis of lying. Sungenis says Scott Hahn misunderstands of the whole issue of justification. Over on the Catholic Answers forum, they recently had a heated discussion as to whether Scott Hahn teaches "prima scriptura." Jimmy Akin says you can pray to whoever you want to, even if they aren't saints. Art Sippo says Mary should be Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Patrick Madrid disagreed with him. More
Why not deal with the RC sects on either side of V2?
All sola scriptura adherents follow the authority of their particular leader; whether Luther,
Nonsense, as Luther himself was far more RC than us, but RCs cannot seem to comprehend life without their pope.
Each is his own authority.
A contradictory statement, but this is a rant anyway, while the fact is the the typical conservative evang. pastor who denies basic truths is more likely to be exposed and censured than priest.
Now go find out how a bunch of common people can be right when following itinerant preachers whom the historical magisterium rejects, but who establish their Truth claims upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
The lack of more of which is the problem, not those who do so.
Peace -
Why don't you post your first and last name. You have zero credibility without it.
You rant behind a fake Internet name like a heckling fan at a sporting event.
I will not respond to an internet babbler with no name.
Lloyd,
if someone presents their opinions followed by sources and evidence, a name doesn't matter. You are the one who continually heckles people on here about their names (unless they're Roman Catholics with fake names).
This is an informal internet blog, people aren't going to always use their real names and it makes it look like you're distracting from the topic on hand, which in the end makes your position incredibly weak.
Since the Reformation, the numerous (and they are springing up all over my neighborhood) ecclesial Christian communities, all under their own authority, all sola scriptura. They don't agree on eschatology, soteriology, the Sacraments, commandments etc. Some ordain gay ministers and women pastors.
I've been going back and forth online with Roman Catholics on this issue for years. Rome's defenders claim unity and claim that contrarily, Protestants are a mess of chaos. Most often online- we debate this subject on the theoretical level.
In real life beyond the Internet, the picture of Rome's unity is displayed to me every day. I've known (and know) a lot of Roman Catholics. The overwhelming majority believe whatever they want to, and treat their church however they want to. There is so much variation in belief and practice with the Roman Catholics I've been in contact with my entire life, the defends of Rome I come across on the Internet claiming "unity" are a weak blip on the radar. For sure, the internet zealots defending Rome are a small blip on the radar. I can count on one hand such folks in person that I've actually met. For the largest (allegedly) Christian body in the entire world, the percentage of Rome's defenders I've met in person are slim to none. And yes, I live in area with a large Roman Catholic presence.
Just recently a very close family friend died (yesterday, actually). He was a Roman Catholic. He believed very little of what the church taught, went to mass every Sunday, but lived his life how he wanted to. Fortunately for him, a priest was brought in to perform last rites, and the family was assured he was OK with God.
Roman Catholics "in person" remind me of how we all are when we sign up for insurance or investing, etc. The manual and paperwork of the rules, terms, and conditions go into a file in case we ever need them, but we rarely, if ever take the time to read through it all. We just function as if all is well. And then, if needed, the insurance policy is brought out, and a representative helps us figure out what our coverage is.
The Roman Catholics I've been in contact with, like the close family friend who died, simply are signed up to Rome for when it's needed. Till then, live, think, and feel, however one wants to, but try to be nice and obey the rules.
Ex opere operato.
FWIW,
I'm not necessarily against anonymous people posting comments. In fact, it's probably safer to be anonymous on the Internet (yes, I've been victimized on the Internet).
Of course, anonymous people can sometimes be trolls and irritants. It's typically though fairly easy to tell the difference between anonymous trolls and those wishing to protect themselves online. Yes, of course, there is more of a sense of an authentic conversation with people who use their real names- so for instance, when I interacted with Dr. Anders a few weeks ago, it was easier to know who I was talking to.
I will not respond to an internet babbler with no name.
That's an excuse i never had in over 10 years, but i understand wht you would need it.
Yet it is your church that made use of pseudepigraphy in
forgeries .
Roman Catholics "in person" remind me of how we all are when we sign up for insurance or investing, etc. The manual and paperwork of the rules, terms, and conditions go into a file in case we ever need them, but we rarely, if ever take the time to read through it all. We just function as if all is well. And then, if needed, the insurance policy is brought out, and a representative helps us figure out what our coverage is.
The Roman Catholics I've been in contact with, like the close family friend who died, simply are signed up to Rome for when it's needed. Till then, live, think, and feel, however one wants to, but try to be nice and obey the rules.
All too true. More than liberal so-called "Prots," Rome is the largest promoter of easy believism.
PBJ said:
"That's an excuse i never had in over 10 years, but i understand wht you would need it."
When someone can no longer argue their point, they must distract. Lloyd hasn't had a good argument yet.
James -
I have been an Elder, catechism teacher and on the Board of Directors in dispensational, Dutch Reformed, WELS, and LCMS churches. You could apply your description of the Catholics to any of those that I have listed.
There are low committed, low information folks in all traditions. Author Matthew Kelly lists the number at about 7 percent of those that are really, truly committed on a daily basis.
How many folks live an antinomian lifestyle. They think that they are justified. They think that they have the insurance policy that you mention-if needed. Meanwhile, they sit in front of their computers and endlessly watch porn. Where is the accountability? Where is the conviction of sin? Where is the confession of Sins?
In fact none other than Kim Riddlebarger once told me that there are elders in his denomination that don't even study.
That is just the way it is, and so shall it ever be, in all camps. If a person believes in Christ and confesses his sins, he has nothing to worry about. Period.
Lloyd said:
"That is just the way it is, and so shall it ever be, in all camps. If a person believes in Christ and confesses his sins, he has nothing to worry about. Period."
Now that is something that I can agree with you on Lloyd. It's important to point out when each other is wrong, but also when we are right. We can and should agree that there are many people in all camps that could be more educated regarding their faith (myself included).
And a true belief in Christ is the most important thing. Without Him nothing.
You could apply your description of the Catholics to any of those that I have listed.
Lloyd, the first time I interacted with you I repeatedly pointed out the double standards displayed by the defenders of Rome. That's my point.
The constant drum beat from the small blip of Rome's defenders online is that Rome has unity while Protestantism does not. My point is, is that in practice, I see even less unity from the Roman Catholics I know. I just wish you folks would man up and be consistent.
That is, be consistent in your argumentation.
In my Parish I see a real zeal for the Lord. We have many more folks at our daily Mass than the Protestant churches have on Sunday. In fact, Bishop Olmstead is planning three more Catholic Churches in our town of Buckeye AZ.
The two other churches in our area have 12,000 and 13,000 Parishioners. Most of the Protestant churches around us are nothing more than 40-60 ecclesial Christian Community tax shelters, all under their own authority.
Our Parish Priest will not let anyone join our church (after RCIA classes if they believe in abortion or gay marriage).
Dr. Scott Hahn says that we have not seen a more awesome group of young men studying for the Priesthood than we have now. Ditto Al Kresta. The Catholic Church is in great shape moving forward, 1.2 billion strong after 2,000 years. Like Patrick Madrid says in one of his 24 books, nothing has changed in 2,000 years. The Church has always had scandal, the same teaching, good Popes and bad ones. The same Sacraments etc. It is the Church that Christ established 2,000 years ago. It is a beautiful Church.
Since the Reformation, the number of sola Scriptura groups are growing, not agreeing on most biblical doctrines.
If the Lord delays His coming you will see a near end of Reformation ecclesial Christian communities after the passing of folks like Kim Riddlebarger, Mike Horton, Sproul, etc. Meanwhile the Catholic Church will just keep on going just like it has for 2,000 years. Nothing has changed in the Church that Christ established in Mat 16:18. And nothing ever will.
I live in the Phoenix area, but it is great to see Catholic radio starting a few weeks ago in the Los Angeles area. They aim to reach about 14 million folks in the area.
Many will be stuck in their cars in traffic, tune in and find out that most of the things that they heard about the Catholic Church was false. There will be a huge work of God in the L.A. area, with many more becoming Catholic.
The Reformed and Calvary Chapel folks will have their worst nightmare as Catholic Radio and T.V. take over their area!
The Pope states that atheists can go to heaven and they should do good things according to their conscience. Jesus said that prostitutes can go to heaven. So, why not atheists? All they have to do is believe in Christ and confess their sins. The Pope tells them to do good. What should he tell them to do bad?
That is not what the pope conveyed, but - confusing what the sinless shed blood of Christ provided for with that which is appropriated by effectual faith - he taught that atheists were now "children of God of the first class" by the blood of Christ, and thus inferred they would see Heaven as atheists.
“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!
And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all!
And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.
‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”" -Pope Francis — http://www.newyorker.com/news/hendrik-hertzberg/father-the-atheists-even-the-atheists
I live in the Phoenix area, but it is great to see Catholic radio starting a few weeks ago in the Los Angeles area. They aim to reach about 14 million folks in the area.
They have one already, but the more Rome is exposed as fallacious, and the more liberal Rome becomes, then it seems the more the minority feel compelled to publish more propaganda.
Rome is such a deformation of the NT church that it fosters cultic devotion among her defenders
Many will be stuck in their cars in traffic, tune in and find out that most of the things that they heard about the Catholic Church was false. There will be a huge work of God in the L.A. area, with many more becoming Catholic.
Like they cannot change the channel, or will not when they hear some rosary radio. The fact is that despite whoever funds these attempts at indoctrinations, there is little hunger among RCs for such as compared with evangelicals, evidenced by the far greater wealth of media outlets and ministries. Excluding TBN type aberrations.
42.1% of Evangelical Protestants and 7.1% of Catholics Read Scripture weekly or more. - http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
Bible Reading: the highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23%. - http://www.science20.com/print/972444
By denomination, 61% of the those associated with an Assemblies of God church said they had shared their faith at least once during the past year, as did 61% of those who attend a Pentecostal/Foursquare church, and ending 14% among Episcopalians and just 10% among Roman Catholics. - http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/54
Catholics [2012] report the lowest proportion of strongly affiliated followers among major American religious traditions, with a considerable divergence between evangelical Protestants on the one hand and Catholics and mainline Protestants on the other. - http://www.science20.com/news_articles/religion_america_evangelicals_surge_catholics_wane-97244
The typical Catholic person was 38% less likely than the average American to read the Bible; 67% less likely to attend a Sunday school class; 20% less likely to share their faith in Christ with someone who had different beliefs, donated about 17% less money to churches, and were 36% less likely to have an "active faith," defined as reading the Bible, praying and attending a church service during the prior week. Catholics were also significantly less likely to believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. 44% of Catholics claimed to be "absolutely committed" to their faith, compared to 54% of the entire adult population. However, Catholics were 16% more likely to attend a church service and 8% more likely to have prayed to God during the prior week than the average American. Barna Reaearch, 2007, “Catholics Have Become Mainstream America” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/100
Related:
Not just gay issues: Why hundreds of congregations made final break with mainline denominations
Post a Comment