The following was posted here.
St. Augustine: Scripture Is Not the Only Source By Which God speaks to Man
Posted by cathmom5 at 9/20/2010 08:34:00 PM
ACTS/CathApol recently hosted a debate on "Sola Scriptura" ...so I thought this passage from St. Augustine might be appropriate. With so many protestants trying to rewrite the Church Fathers, I thought I'd share some thoughts on one of the leading Catholic Doctors hijacked by protestants today.
One way God has spoken to His people over the course of time is through prophets. Many of the prophecies were written down, many were incorporated in the signs and symbols of our worship (latreia) of Our Lord and Savior. God's word continues to be read and expressed in His Church today.
32. The mystery of Christ's redemption was not absent in any previous era, but it was made known under different symbols
This mystery of eternal life has been made known by the ministry of angels from the beginning of the human race. It was revealed to those who were fit to receive the knowledge by means of signs and symbols appropriate to the times. Later, the Hebrew people was gathered and united in a kind of community designed to perform this sacred function of revelation. In that people the future course of events, from the coming of Christ to the present day, and even beyond, was prophesied through the agency of some who realized, and some who did not realize, what they were doing. In the course of time, this people was scattered among the nations to bear witness to the Scriptures, which foretold the coming salvation of Christ. For not only all the prophesies contained in words, not only all the precepts for the conduct of life which shape men's character and their piety and are contained in the Scriptures, but also the ceremonies, the sacred rites, the festal days, and everything which concerned with the homage due to God (the Greeks call it latreia) - all these were symbols and predictions that find their fulfilment in Christ, so as to give eternal life to those who believe. We believe that they have been fulfilled; we observe that they are being fulfilled; we are convinced that they will go on being fulfilled.
(St. Augustine, "City of God," Book VII)
I posted this in its entirety to show how some Romanists understand sola scriptura, or rather, don't understand sola scriptura. If someone can read a quote like this and think it speaks against sola scriptura, they are simply clueless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
164 comments:
James,
You're saying that cathmom5 is clueless.
That's not nice or respectful.
:-|
Protestants Have Hijacked Augustine
I wholeheartedly agree!
Well, it is about time Augustine converted!
And yes, he would indeed HAVE to be "converted" for he was most definitely a Catholic! He was a priest and bishop and later named a Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Faith! It's really amazing to see non-Catholics embrace him so much! I strongly encourage non-Catholics to read more from St. Augustine, and not just what they are shown from other non-Catholic sources.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
James, You're saying that cathmom5 is clueless.That's not nice or respectful. :-|
I don't take it back. The blog that hosted that entry is part of a Romanist apologetic organization that actually asks for donations-
See:
https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=uNfgD2Y0ubfKhC74mE3jAyRWVa8j9eQmIJ4t0cLOZyxhu5RyzL02Ypabx1m&dispatch=50a222a57771920b6a3d7b606239e4d529b525e0b7e69bf0224adecfb0124e9b61f737ba21b0819812f77a5508bed785e5c4fc15b606ef11.
They take themselves seriously and think they deserve money for what the produce.
If they actually think this Augustine quote addresses the rich history of books expounding on sola scriptura, they are simply clueless.
If a website wants your money for what they produce, and they have no idea what they are talking about, it would be wrong for me NOT to call them on it.
Romanists should save their money, and give it to some organization that at least is actually doing apologetics.
I wholeheartedly agree!
Sorry, I don't follow rabbit trails.
James Swan said...
>> (quoting Lvka) I wholeheartedly agree!
>
> Sorry, I don't follow rabbit trails.
No, you just like to create them and then refuse to follow back in a trail of your own making!
Now, to your complaint about a "site which wants money..." what's so wrong with that?! IF someone feels so inclined to click on a link (which the URL you posted happens to be invalid) to support what they are reading - what's it to you?! Running a website costs money too - it's not free, like blogspot.
Now, I assume you're referring to MY website which does have a paypal link on it. Do you know how many donations that link has produced? I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know the grand total in over 10 years is $10.00. The ONE TIME that link paid anything caught me a bit off-guard. That doesn't even cover the site for a month! I don't make a huge request for money, nor do I plead with supporters to keep my site up and running. ACTS has literally COST me in the thousands of dollars, but I don't mind. And again, if someone feels like supporting ACTS, what's it to you? I'm not expecting you to do provide financial support - like I said, I don't expect it of anyone. So get off the high-horse and stop judging others for simply posting a link for assistance in paying EXPENSES.
As for the allegedly "rich history of books expounding on sola scriptura..." whatever! There's at least as much "richness" in history of books DENOUNCING sola scriptura! The numbers of books promoting a lie doesn't make the lie a truth! Using that sort of logic, we should be accepting of, oh let's say Eastern religious thought through cults like Self Realization Fellowship and Paramahansa Yogananda (just one example of applying Swan's illogical assertion). If TEN BOOKS tells the truth, and a MILLION tell lies, I'll stand on the TEN BOOKS in the face of a "rich history expounding upon" a lie.
So, one more thing... you were chided (not by me) for calling cathmom5 "clueless" as such a statement being "not nice or respectful." Your response is you're not taking it back because of an unused link on a tangentially related website? Have you ever heard of the term "non sequitur?"
just wondering if those who reject sola scriptura see this quote that Mr. Swan raises actually contradicting sola scrip?
regardless of where one stands...how does this quote from Augustine contradict SS?
thanks.
-joe
Augustine would never have needed to convert. He was a catholic, not a Romanist. :)
Yup, dream on guys by the time you wake up it's really a nightmare:
Augustine on the Primacy of Peter
"Number the bishops even from the very SET OF PETER, and see EVERY SUCCESSION IN THAT LINE OF FATHERS; that SEAT is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail." Psalmus Contra Partem Donati 43.30.
"There are many things which which most justly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church; the agreement of peoples and nations keep me; the authority established by miracles, fostered by hope, increased by charity, and confirmed by antiquity, keeps me; the SUCCESSION OF PRIESTS FROM THE VERY SEE OF THE APOSTLE PETER, unto whom our Lord after His Resurrection committed His sheep to be fed, down to the Episcopate, to this day, keeps me; in fine, the very name of Catholic keeps me, which, not without cause, has in the midst of so many heresies clung to this Church alone in such a way that though all heretics want to be called Catholics, still when a stranger asks to be directed to the Catholic Church no man of them dares to point out his own basilica or house." Against the Letter of Manichaeus
"For, if the order of the succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom the Lord said: 'Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." For to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement ... To Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Sircius, to Sircius Anastasius." (St. Augustine, Epistle 53)
Cont:
Also in terms of Peter's own authoritative primacy, Augustine says:
"Peter ... On account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples." (St. Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmum 108)
And speaking of the authority of the Roman church itself, he says:
The Church of Rome "...in which the authority of the Apostolic office has always stood fast." (St. Augustine, Epistle 43:7)
So I say, keep dreamin'...zzzzz
Peace
ERRATUM:
"SET" should be "SEAT"
"...FROM THE VERY SEAT OF PETER, and see EVERY SUCCESSION IN THAT LINE OF FATHERS"
Augustine didn't believe in the concept of the papacy, and he contradicted Roman Catholicism on some other issues. See the three-part series on Augustine and Roman Catholicism linked here. In that series, I quote from an article by the Catholic patristic scholar Robert Eno, regarding Augustine's view of authority. I also address Augustine's differences with Catholicism on some other points.
On the same page linked above, I have articles on the alleged Roman Catholic identity of other fathers, including an article on whether Irenaeus should be considered a Roman Catholic.
Jae,
You bring up primacy and all, but I am wondering if you think this quote by Augustine and point of the post by Mr. Swan actually contradicts SS?
Thanks.
-Joe
Augustine didn't believe in the concept of the papacy.
Tim,
I followed your link and read the papacy entries. I found nothing proving that Augustine didn't believe in the 'concept' of the papacy.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Did Augustine not believe that a bishop was in Rome? Did Augustine not believe that said bishop was in succession from the chair of St. Peter? Did Augustine not see being in communion with that bishop as essential?
What do you mean when you say that Augustine 'did not believe in the concept of the papacy' and from what extant work(s) are you referencing?
You read all 6,000 words of the papacy entries and still do not know what Jason Engwer's arguments are or understand the scholarship he cited? The articles were easy to understand and explicit in their positions (e.g. "[Roman Catholic patristic scholar] Eno explains that Augustine didn't believe in a papacy, but instead placed ecumenical councils above the bishop of Rome: [quotation follows]"). I don't know what could be said in response to you other than to suggest development of reading comprehension skills.
Jason - I accidentally called you 'Tim.' Sorry.
Matthew.
The fact that you’ve used insults both times you have addressed me over the past several days is noted. If you knew how bad it makes your position look than you would stop.
Moving right along, when a blanket statement is made such as, 'Augustine did not believe in the concept of the papacy' than it is only fair that we ask what that means.
Even Eno and Pelikan whom Jason quotes, affirm that Augustine did believe in the succession of the Bishop of Rome from Peter down to the present day. He also believed that he was in communion with that bishop and that those that were not in communion with that bishop were not in the church.
Did Augustine explicitly have a fully formed doctrine of papal infallibility? No, yet we would not expect him to have such an idea in the third century just like we don't hold Clement as a heretic because he never explicitly provided a fully formed and completely developed picture of the Trinity, for example.
Eno's point is not 'the papacy is a fraud because Augustine did not explicitly believe in papal infallibility.' Eno's point is that in Augustine's day he held to the idea of the papacy insofar as the church understood the role of the papacy in AD 350.
Pelikan proves: It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised edition of 1978, 412-413)
Yes, as I said, he goes onto clarify that Augustine did not have the fully developed understanding of the papacy that we have today but we wouldn’t expect him to have that understanding. And he goes on further to say that by the middle of the 5th century the understanding of a Roman primacy was accepted everywhere.
Con't
Matthew,
On what basis do you disagree with Augustine that
A) Peter has had and has always had a successor in Rome and that
B) Being out of communion with this successor means you are not in the Catholic Church?
"This gospel that has just been read about Christ the Lord, and how he walked over the surface of the sea, and about the apostle Peter, and how, by growing afraid as he walked, he staggered, and by losing confidence began to submerge, until by confessing he again emerged; this gospel is advising us to take the sea as meaning the present age and this world, and the apostle Peter as representing the one and only Church. Peter, you see, is the first in the class of the apostles, and the readiest in expressing love of Christ, and is often the one who answers for all ... So then, this self-same Peter, blessed by being surnamed Rocky from the rock, representing the person of the Church, holding the chief place in the apostolic ranks..."
(Sermon 76:1-3 (A.D. 412)
"For who can fail to know that the most blessed Peter was the first of the apostles?"
(On the Gospel of John (A.D. 416),
The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.
(Against the Letter of Mani called the "Fundamental",4:5 (A.D. 397),
Note that according to Augustine, the Roman See is first because he assigns Peter first amongst the Apostles.
"Why! A faggot that is cut off from the vine retains its shape. But what use is that shape, if it is not living from the root?...Come, brothers, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus cut off. Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see who to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly."
(Psalm against the Donatist Party, 2 (A.D. 393
So which is a closer ecclesiology to Augustine? The Catholic Church or the Protestant position which asserts in various forms that there is no sacramental apostolic succession at all and that being outside of communion with the successor of Peter means nothing?
Sean writes:
The fact that you’ve used insults both times you have addressed me over the past several days is noted.
If you think it's an "insult" to recommend you learn how to read a series of documents when you ask questions that are easily answered by the texts you claim to have read, then so be it. I’m not going to capitulate to people who deliberately stick their heads in the sand and then claim that the arguments made against their position were insufficient. That's making judgments without being properly informed, which renders your initial assertion about the failure of Engwer's articles baseless.
Moving right along, when a blanket statement is made such as, 'Augustine did not believe in the concept of the papacy' than it is only fair that we ask what that means.
No, it's only fair to ask "what that means" if it is not implicitly or explicitly defined or explained in the articles and materials provided to support that statement.
Did Augustine explicitly have a fully formed doctrine of papal infallibility? No, yet we would not expect him to have such an idea in the third century just like we don't hold Clement as a heretic because he never explicitly provided a fully formed and completely developed picture of the Trinity, for example.
This is an argument by analogy without the supporting argument; this merely assumes that Augustine’s earlier positions on the papacy are compatible with later conceptions of the papacy. But Jason denies that very claim in his articles. Why don't you interact with the reasons Jason Engwer provided in his articles that support why he doesn't think Augustine held to the papacy (if you did, indeed, read the articles)?
Eno's point is not 'the papacy is a fraud because Augustine did not explicitly believe in papal infallibility.'
Please quote passages from Jason's articles that demonstrate he was trying to show that the papacy was "a fraud." You have a habit of reconstructing your opponent's position into something more easily refuted, removing qualifications and nuances that would otherwise allow a robust and credible position to be maintained for sustained argument. It's the kind of sophistry unbecoming someone who thinks he's defending the One True Church to which all Scripture and history attests.
Eno's point is that in Augustine's day he held to the idea of the papacy insofar as the church understood the role of the papacy in AD 350.
All that does is beg the question in favor of your position, that Augustine still held to an acceptable, Catholic definition of the papacy. It also doesn’t interact in any substantial manner with the sections Jason quoted from Eno.
(Continued)
On what basis do you disagree with Augustine that
A) Peter has had and has always had a successor in Rome and that
B) Being out of communion with this successor means you are not in the Catholic Church?
And why should we think these are the sufficient and necessary conditions of believing in a “papacy”? Illegitimately trying to shift the debate onto grounds you can win is a much greater “weakness” to a position than any “insult” that could be offered.
So which is a closer ecclesiology to Augustine? The Catholic Church or the Protestant position which asserts in various forms that there is no sacramental apostolic succession at all and that being outside of communion with the successor of Peter means nothing?
I know you try to frame these kinds of questions into a sort of competition between fidelity to the church fathers. But whether or not complete fidelity is obtained, you think the mere fact that Augustine is more Catholic than Protestant allows you to win the argument. That, of course, is either a misrepresentation of Jason Engwer’s approach or a blatant dismissal of his arguments without any consideration of their merit. Jason’s arguments stand or fall regardless of how close Protestantism stands to the views of Augustine.
Indeed, all you are doing is assuming the legitimacy of comparing our doctrinal beliefs to the precedent of the church fathers. That’s really just begging the question in favor of your interpretive paradigm—a paradigm you need to argue for, instead of merely assuming is true. Perhaps you have forgotten that Protestants care about fidelity to Scripture, not fidelity to Augustine.
Matthew,
I am running out of time today so this will be brief.
this merely assumes that Augustine’s earlier positions on the papacy are compatible with later conceptions of the papacy.
What Jason does in his article is assume that Augustine's earlier positions on the papacy are incompatible with the later conceptions of the papacy. Eno doesn't do that. Jason does.
Why don't you interact with the reasons Jason Engwer provided in his articles that support why he doesn't think Augustine held to the papacy (if you did, indeed, read the articles)?
I'll try to get more into that later tonight but this discussion has already been hashed out in the blog world so we won't be covering new ground. See here for example.
Please quote passages from Jason's articles that demonstrate he was trying to show that the papacy was "a fraud."
Please quote where I said that Jason's article says that the papacy is a fraud? Oh yeah, I didn't say that. However, given the history of "Beggar's All" on this subject I don't think I was off in my statement in general.
And why should we think these are the sufficient and necessary conditions of believing in a “papacy”?
It was good enough for St. Augustine. Augstine certainly believed in the papacy insofar as the papacy was understood in his day.
But whether or not complete fidelity is obtained, you think the mere fact that Augustine is more Catholic than Protestant allows you to win the argument.
I am not trying to argue. I am trying to engage ya'll on the truth of the matter. If it is the case that the Catholic conception of the role of the bishop of Rome is much closer (it is) to Augustine than your conception than that is an important consideration especially considering that the statement was "Augustine did not believe in the papacy."
Perhaps you have forgotten that Protestants care about fidelity to Scripture, not fidelity to Augustine.
Indeed.
OK...I am having blogger deleting comments issues again.
OH well....
I don't have time to fix it today.
Sean writes:
Augstine certainly believed in the papacy insofar as the papacy was understood in his day.
It seems you are repeating sentiments to which I have already responded.
If it is the case that the Catholic conception of the role of the bishop of Rome is much closer (it is) to Augustine than your conception than that is an important consideration
Why is it an important consideration? You need to explain why this proximity is relevant to Engwer's claims (or even relevant on its own grounds).
OK...I am having blogger deleting comments issues again.
So far, comments sent to the spam box by blogger first turn up in my Google Reader subscription. Yet I don't see any comments from you in the reader. I'll ask James if any comments of yours have gone to the filter.
Matthew,
I had a comment briefly appear above the one that was posted.
It started with: "I don't have a lot of time today so this will be brief."
"It was good enough for St. Augustine. Augstine certainly believed in the papacy insofar as the papacy was understood in his day. "
That seems like a pretty worthless standard, if there was no doctrine of the papacy in his day.
"So which is a closer ecclesiology to Augustine? The Catholic Church or the Protestant position which asserts in various forms that there is no sacramental apostolic succession at all and that being outside of communion with the successor of Peter means nothing?"
Here's another odd standard. Closer? Since when is close enough in Romanism?
I can imagine hearing on Catholic Answers: "Proclaiming Something Close to the Truth for 2000 Years!"
Neither of us has precisely the same ecclesiology as Augustine. Which of us is better able to justify his ecclesiology? The one who appeals to the more ancient testimony of Scripture or the one who appeals to the more recent traditions of Rome?
-TurretinFan
Turretinfan said...
>> "It was good enough for St.
>> Augustine. Augstine certainly
>> believed in the papacy insofar as
>> the papacy was understood in his
>> day. "
>
> That seems like a pretty worthless
> standard, if there was no doctrine
> of the papacy in his day.
sw: Oh, you a funny guy! Actually, this would be funny if it weren't such a serious matter. The fact of the matter is there are many references in St. Augustine's works to the papacy and his respect for the office and St. Peter's successor. It is actually quite tragic that so many turn such a blind eye to the evidence put before them and the rationalizations they use to get around the plain words spoken by one who would later be named a Saint and Doctor of the Roman Catholic Faith! As a priest and bishop he offered the Sacrifice of the Mass and supported the other Sacraments of the Catholic Faith.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
"To go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant."
Bl. John Cardinal Newman
Agreed.
It sure would be nice if somebody here defined what they meant by 'doctrine of the papacy' because we are told there was no 'doctrine of the papacy' in Augustine's day yet Augustine writes about the successor of Peter and being in communion him in explicit terms.
'Oh, that doesn't matter...' we are told.
If one seeks to have the same ecclesiology of Augustine than they better get in communion with the successor to St. Peter....there is only one place to do that...THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Mr. Fan,
The one who appeals to the more ancient testimony of Scripture or the one who appeals to the more recent traditions of Rome.
In this thread it is the Protestant who is attempting an appeal to the ancient traditions. But your statement is a good reminder than the Protestant will only try to use the church fathers up to a point…when the fathers don’t support their views than its back to appealing to their own views of scripture alone.
Sean writes:
It sure would be nice if somebody here defined what they meant by 'doctrine of the papacy'
It sure would be nice if Roman Catholic lay-apologists would carefully read articles before objecting to them.
because we are told there was no 'doctrine of the papacy' in Augustine's day yet Augustine writes about the successor of Peter and being in communion him in explicit terms.
This has already been addressed.
In this thread it is the Protestant who is attempting an appeal to the ancient traditions. But your statement is a good reminder than the Protestant will only try to use the church fathers up to a point…when the fathers don’t support their views than its back to appealing to their own views of scripture alone.
The only way your implicit charge of inconsistency succeeds against Engwer's current arguments is if you ignore the distinction between an internal critique and an external critique.
Of course, even if we ignore that distinction, the objection is easily turned against your position. Roman Catholics only follow the early church fathers when they support the current teachings of the Magisterium. But once the fathers disagree with the Magisterium on some point, it's back to appealing to the Magisterium alone.
Sean,
when you write: In this thread it is the Protestant who is attempting an appeal to the ancient traditions. But your statement is a good reminder than the Protestant will only try to use the church fathers up to a point…when the fathers don’t support their views than its back to appealing to their own views of scripture alone.
I respond it is pure arrogance on your part to presume Christ's Body has not been around since His ascension.
Keep in mind, which I suppose you don't, the Reformation of Martin Luther and John Calvin et al was doing two things.
One, being delivered from false doctrine and traditions of men.
Two, being refreshed in the Truth since He is an Eternal Living Abiding Being Who moved upon their souls and so delivering them from false doctrines and the traditions of men.
The Scriptures have never been broken.
When I read Martin Luther or John Calvin and others of the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeen centuries even to those writing today, I have a sense of the Holy Spirit, Who also is Eternal.
Your delusion is so noted!
I encourage you with these Words to read them and do as they suggest you do:
Rev 18:1 After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was made bright with his glory.
Rev 18:2 And he called out with a mighty voice, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living."
Rev 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues;
Rev 18:5 for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.
Rev 18:6 Pay her back as she herself has paid back others, and repay her double for her deeds; mix a double portion for her in the cup she mixed.
Rev 18:7 As she glorified herself and lived in luxury, so give her a like measure of torment and mourning, since in her heart she says, 'I sit as a queen, I am no widow, and mourning I shall never see.'
Rev 18:8 For this reason her plagues will come in a single day, death and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire; for mighty is the Lord God who has judged her."
You see, the difference between her and Christ and His Church is, He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief!
St. Peter so noted of His Church, the same:
1Pe 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.
1Pe 4:13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.
1Pe 4:14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.
1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.
1Pe 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.
"Roman Catholics only follow the early church fathers when they support the current teachings of the Magisterium. But once the fathers disagree with the Magisterium on some point, it's back to appealing to the Magisterium alone.
You are succeeding only in making Protestantism and her apologists look terribly bad. You really have nothing to say about the position in which you find yourself, do you?
You are succeeding only in making Protestantism and her apologists look terribly bad. You really have nothing to say about the position in which you find yourself, do you?
And what, in your estimation, beyond conversion to Catholicism and admission that all historical and Scriptural facts cohere with your denomination's teachings, would qualify as a credible and successful defense of Protestantism?
Blogahon,
Matthew Schultz is right. The material I linked explains clearly, and at length, how Augustine contradicted the concept of the papacy. You aren't interacting with what I said. Instead, you're giving us a vague denial without responding to my arguments, and you're telling us that you only have to defend something less than the papacy. You write:
"Yes, as I said, he goes onto clarify that Augustine did not have the fully developed understanding of the papacy that we have today but we wouldn’t expect him to have that understanding. And he goes on further to say that by the middle of the 5th century the understanding of a Roman primacy was accepted everywhere....So which is a closer ecclesiology to Augustine? The Catholic Church or the Protestant position which asserts in various forms that there is no sacramental apostolic succession at all and that being outside of communion with the successor of Peter means nothing?"
As Matthew explained, you're changing the subject. Not only are you not interacting with my arguments, but you're also trying to shift the discussion from whether Augustine agreed with Roman Catholicism to whether he was closer to Catholicism than Protestantism.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
You go on:
"Augstine certainly believed in the papacy insofar as the papacy was understood in his day."
First of all, it's not as though the papacy is such a complex concept that we would expect people to need more than a few hundred years to understand it. The appeal to development only makes sense in contexts in which development is to be expected.
Second, the concept of the Roman bishop's universal jurisdiction was affirmed by Roman bishops before Augustine wrote. It was a concept already circulating.
Third, the First Vatican Council (session 4, chapters 1-2) refers to its concept of a papacy with universal jurisdiction as a doctrine always held and understood by the church. "Always" began hundreds of years before Augustine wrote.
Fourth, how do you supposedly know that Augustine would accept the later developments that Roman Catholics accept, developments that contradict what Augustine believed? Even if Augustine had only been silent about the definition of the papacy that you refer to as a later development, you would have to explain why we should think that his view develops into the Roman Catholic view as an acorn develops into an oak. But Augustine wasn't just silent. He repeatedly contradicted your concept of the papacy, as I documented.
Fifth, are you renouncing Catholic arguments for a more developed concept of the papacy in Augustine's day and earlier? When Catholics cite earlier Roman bishops referring to universal jurisdiction, for example, do you reject that Catholic argument? After all, such a concept of the papacy hadn't developed yet, right? Are you going to criticize your fellow Catholics for using such argumentation?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
By the way, the readers should note that Blogahon attributed a quote of J.N.D. Kelly to Jaroslav Pelikan. And I suspect that Blogahon got his Augustine quotes from an online source rather than from his own studies of Augustine.
For those who don't know, concepts like Petrine primacy and succession from Peter are common among sources who don't believe in the papacy. For example, a group of Eastern Orthodox scholars recently wrote a book titled The Primacy Of Peter (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992). It doesn't follow that they believe in the papacy or that their beliefs naturally grow into a papacy as an acorn naturally grows into an oak. Similarly, there's widespread scholarly agreement that Cyprian held a high view of Peter and the bishops of Rome, believed in Petrine succession in Rome, believed in a primacy of Rome, etc., yet rejected the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. See here. When people like Jae, CathApol, and Blogahon cite such concepts in Augustine, as if such concepts demonstrate Augustine's support of the papacy, they're proving that they don't even understand the issue under discussion.
Furthermore, a belief that communion with Rome is necessary under one situation doesn't imply that it's necessary under all circumstances. As I documented in my series on apostolic succession (linked on the page I cited in my first post in this thread), the fathers often spoke of apostolic succession with qualifiers included. The same Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, etc. who speak highly of Rome and the need for communion with that church in one place speak against that church and deny that it has universal jurisdiction elsewhere. Similarly, when somebody like Irenaeus or Tertullian speaks highly of the church of Ephesus under particular circumstances, we don't assume that his assessment must be true of the Ephesian church throughout church history. We recognize that his assessment of Ephesus was qualified, yet Catholics often ignore such qualifications when Rome is in view.
The readers should also note that my other examples of Augustine's disagreements with Catholicism haven't been addressed.
Jason,
thanks for the reminder. I was going to comment about this very odd idea of Sean's after I first read it and wouldn't you know it I went off on a tangent and forgot to.
Jason comments on something Sean wrote about Augustine's ability to believe something "into"the future.
Jason:
Fourth, how do you supposedly know that Augustine would accept the later developments that Roman Catholics accept, developments that contradict what Augustine believed? Even if Augustine had only been silent about the definition of the papacy that you refer to as a later development, you would have to explain why we should think that his view develops into the Roman Catholic view as an acorn develops into an oak. But Augustine wasn't just silent. He repeatedly contradicted your concept of the papacy, as I documented.
Here's Sean's comment about what Augustine understood then about the Roman Catholic Church papacy now or at least that is the way it comes across?
Sean:
Even Eno and Pelikan whom Jason quotes, affirm that Augustine did believe in the succession of the Bishop of Rome from Peter down to the present day. He also believed that he was in communion with that bishop and that those that were not in communion with that bishop were not in the church.
What an amazing thing in that both Augustine must have been clairvoyant in that he could see down the corridors of time to know just the way things would be with the Roman Catholic Church's papacy currently and Sean must practice necromancy as well as the veneration of the relics of catholic patristic fathers because Augustine hasn't been around for all these centuries!
Hmmmmm?
How does Sean know just how Augustine was actually thinking about the papacy to this day then?
Alright guys. I am going to go ahead and let Augustine speak for himself. When he speaks about the bishop of Rome held in succession from St. Peter and being in communion with that bishop, I am going to take his word for it.
Jason, the irony in your statement...
Fourth, how do you supposedly know that Augustine would accept the later developments that Roman Catholics accept
...Is that you are assuming that Augustine would not accept any development which runs contrary to the faith that Augustine had in the church which he believed was founded by Christ.
First of all, it's not as though the papacy is such a complex concept that we would expect people to need more than a few hundred years to understand it.
As simple as it is, Augustine believed in succession from Peter. You don't.
Third, the First Vatican Council (session 4, chapters 1-2) refers to its concept of a papacy with universal jurisdiction as a doctrine always held and understood by the church.
This is true. The same chapter cites St. Vincent Lerins on development of doctrine in this precise section.
Fifth, are you renouncing Catholic arguments for a more developed concept of the papacy in Augustine's day and earlier?
What am I renouncing?
By the way, the readers should note that Blogahon attributed a quote of J.N.D. Kelly to Jaroslav Pelikan.
My mistake. I was going in between various notes and in a hurry. No what?
The same Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, etc. who speak highly of Rome and the need for communion with that church in one place speak against that church and deny that it has universal jurisdiction elsewhere.
It all depends on what you mean by 'universal jurisdiction.'
At the end of the day your pastor is not in communion with the bishop of Rome, something that was important enough to Augustine. So much for your blanket denial that Augustine 'had no concept of the Papacy.'
The straw man that you constructed in your 'series' is that we must have a fully developed since of the papacy in X church father, otherwise X church father disagrees with the Catholic Church and wouldn't be Catholic if he were alive today.
Sorry. Not buying your presuppositions here.
What I find fascinating is that every time James swan points out how lame a RC Epologist's arguments are, other RC Epologists rush in to change the subject. I take such tactics as a tacit admission thet Mr. Swan has been proven correct. For if he was wrong, surely our RC Epologists would deign to counter Mr. Swan's point? Instead we get endless rabbit holes.
Yes Edward, but, isn't it a Roman Catholic tradition that the easter bunny lays colored eggs?
It is ironic for me though! I love deviled egg sandwiches! :) or not? :(
Sean,
At the end of the day your pastor is not in communion with the bishop of Rome, something that was important enough to Augustine. So much for your blanket denial that Augustine 'had no concept of the Papacy.'
If you would take some time and ponder, after prayers to the Holy Spirit to give you a sense of what you are reading when reading the Bible, you would quickly see, both, how foolish those comments of yours are, and, how deceived the RCC is that you are not considered to be a member of Christ's Body because you are not in communion with the bishop of Rome who supposedly is linked by succession all the way back to the ministry of the Apostle Peter. What about those who were linked to Paul's apostleship or John's or James' in Jerusalem?
Since all "bishops" are fallible human beings, there is going to be some false starts at times when establishing the beginnings and endings of Churches and ministries throughout the world. Even today ministries fold or ministers and in your case priests are set aside for one reason or another.
There has been and continues to be a warfare against the Church by demonic principalities and powers of spiritual wickedness. Consequently there have been "ministers/bishops" who have been forced to let go or simply let go of the plow.
Here are some notable cases in point:
Act 1:16 "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
Act 1:17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry."
Col 4:17 And say to Archippus, "See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord."
1Ti 1:18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare,
1Ti 1:19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,
1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Now, as for this erroneous idea of having to be in some sort of linkage and succession all the way back to St. Peter and Rome to be a part of the Body of Christ, have you ever considered what these verses imply:
Act 16:6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.
Act 16:7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.
Act 16:8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas.
Act 16:9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us."
Especially when you read these Words of Scripture:
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
DOn't forget, too, that some portion of what Augustine believed about the papacy already included some fictional construct:
Later legend would fill out the details of Peter's life and death in Rome -- his struggles with the magician and father of heresy, Simon Magus, his miracles, his attempted escape from persecution in Rome, a flight from which he was turned back by a reproachful vision by Christ (the 'Quo Vadis' legend), and finally his crucifixion upside down in the Vatican Circus at the time of the Emperor Nero. These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (Eamon Duffy, "Saints and Sinners," pg 2.)
I don't know that anyone has traced this in Augustine's work, but it's certainly a worthwhile project to trace what fictional elements were believed as true in Augustine's work.
Blogahon wrote:
"I am going to go ahead and let Augustine speak for himself. When he speaks about the bishop of Rome held in succession from St. Peter and being in communion with that bishop, I am going to take his word for it."
Why do you keep repeating bad arguments that have already been refuted?
Concepts of succession from Peter have taken multiple forms and have appeared in sources who denied the universal jurisdiction of those who were the successors. For example, some people have believed that all bishops are successors of Peter or that the bishop of Rome is Peter's successor in a unique way, but with a primacy of honor rather than one of jurisdiction. See my comments on the recent book by some Eastern Orthodox scholars and the example of Cyprian that I mentioned.
I've addressed the issue of communion with Rome above. See my comments on Ephesus.
The fact that you and other Catholics want to defend something less than the papacy, as if it's sufficient for you to defend something that an Eastern Orthodox could accept or views that have been condemned by Roman Catholic councils, is revealing.
You write:
"Is that you are assuming that Augustine would not accept any development which runs contrary to the faith that Augustine had in the church which he believed was founded by Christ."
If a belief is "contrary to the faith that Augustine had", then it doesn't make sense to view that belief as a development of Augustine's faith. Contradictions aren't developments in the sense in which an acorn grows into an oak. If contradictions can be considered developments, then everything from Eastern Orthodoxy to Islam to Lutheranism to Mormonism can be considered a development of Augustine's faith.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
You write:
"As simple as it is, Augustine believed in succession from Peter. You don't."
The issue isn't whether I agree with Augustine. I don't claim that he held my view, was a member of my denomination, etc. The issue is whether he agreed with Roman Catholicism.
And why are we supposed to believe that the issues he agreed with you about are the ones that we should be focused on, whereas the ones he didn't agree with you about are the ones that can develop over time? You're framing the discussion in a way that assumes your conclusion.
Many people who have rejected the papacy, such as Eastern Orthodox, have believed in some type of succession from Peter. So do I. I think all or some Christians can be considered successors of Peter in some contexts, but I don't believe that Peter had universal jurisdiction or that such authority was passed on exclusively to an unbroken succession of Roman bishops. Again, the fact that you keep defending something less than the papacy is revealing.
You write:
"The same chapter cites St. Vincent Lerins on development of doctrine in this precise section."
Explain how that's relevant to what I said. You keep making vague comments when the relevance of what you're saying depends on specifics.
You write:
"I was going in between various notes and in a hurry. No what?"
Accuracy is important. So are research and knowledge of an issue you're discussing with other people. You keep making mistakes, including obvious ones, even after you've been corrected more than once and by more than one person.
You write:
"At the end of the day your pastor is not in communion with the bishop of Rome, something that was important enough to Augustine."
See my comments above about apostolic succession, Ephesus, etc. You keep ignoring what we've already said in response to the bad arguments you keep repeating.
"You keep ignoring what we've already said in response to the bad arguments you keep repeating".
Saying it is a bad argument does not make it so. It is nothing but a cheap trick; you need to show how an argument is bad just as you have been shown how bad your arguments are.
I won’t have much time today and further, it seems we’ve come full circle, not too mention dropped comments.
I summarized my problem with Jason saying, "Augustine had no concept of the Papacy" in my 11:15 AM and following comment yesterday.
Augustine clearly did have a concept of the Papacy. He writes of the primacy of the Roman See in certain terms and I demonstrated from extant sources that Augustine believed in the succession of bishops from Peter's seat and that being cut from that succession meant being removed from the living branch (e.g. the Church). – Both are critical features of the papacy. Both are affirmed by St. Augustine.
In the document Jason cites on Triablogue to attempt to prove that Augustine ‘had no belief in the papacy’, “On Baptism Against the Donatist”, Augustine affirms the primacy of the Roman See:
Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle ... I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever?"
(On Baptism against the Donatist, 2:1,1(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:425-426)
Further, he (along with other African bishops) appealed to the bishop of Rome against the Pelagians. Why do that if Augustine was so against any notion of universal jurisdiction? See here for a great summary of the African bishops, the Pelagian controversy and the Roman See.
Augustine wrote of the Bishop of Rome’s judgment: "The words of the venerable Bishop Innocent (of Rome!) concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council ...What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the Apostolical See?"
(Augustine, Against Two Letter of the Pelagians, 4:6 (A.D. 420)
From the link I mentioned: Near the end of Augustine's life, in his incomplete reply against Julian, bishop of Eclanum and ardent defender of Pelagianism, Augustine continued to affirm the finality and authority of Pope Innocent's decree. Augustine writes:
"Since you persist in asserting that freedom, acting rightly or wrongly, cannot perish through sheer misuse, let the blessed Pope Innocent, pontiff of the Roman church, answer. Replying on your affairs to the episcopal councils of Africa (Carthage and Mileve) he said, 'Having experienced free will...'Do you see what the catholic faith does through its minister?"
(Augustine, Unfinished Work against Julian's 2nd reply, 6:11 (A.D. 430)
Jason would do well to read the letters that Augustine is referencing – the ones to and from Pope Innocent and the councils of Carthage and Mileve. They speak of Roman universal jurisdiction and authority in clear terms. Augustine never questions those statements.
OK. I am having comments dropped again (which I know isn't anybody's fault) but it makes my response impossible.
I spent a lot of time this morning framing a complete reponse to Jason and just saw the first part dropped.
I have it saved in a word document so if somebody can assure that my posts can be recovered and posted I'll continue.
Dozie writes:
"Saying it is a bad argument does not make it so. It is nothing but a cheap trick; you need to show how an argument is bad just as you have been shown how bad your arguments are."
You say that without offering any demonstration of your own claims. And you're ignoring the evidence I did provide. I don't have to reproduce my evidence in each post in order to have provided evidence.
Blogahon,
If you want me to address passages you're lifting from Catholic web sites, then you need to first address the passages I cited in the series I linked earlier in this thread. You can't just ignore what I first brought up, then expect me to interact with anything you want to bring up afterward.
You write:
"Jason would do well to read the letters that Augustine is referencing – the ones to and from Pope Innocent and the councils of Carthage and Mileve. They speak of Roman universal jurisdiction and authority in clear terms. Augustine never questions those statements."
But earlier you appealed to development and told us that Augustine "believed in the papacy insofar as the papacy was understood in his day". You tried to shift the discussion to whether Augustine was closer to Catholicism or Protestantism. Now you tell us that a papacy with universal jurisdiction (the attribute I've been emphasizing) was known and expressed "in clear terms". It seems that you're changing your argument as you come across more information on the web. You entered the discussion without knowing much about the subject, and now you're repeating information you've come across at Catholic web sites.
I'm not going to address every citation or claim you bring up while you continue to ignore what I've already cited. But I will address something you've touched on above.
Should we assume that Augustine agreed with statements made by other people involved on his side of a dispute, such as during the Pelagian controversy? No, unless there's more reason to conclude that there was agreement. When Athanasius cites his agreement with an earlier or contemporary source on the deity of Christ, for example, we don't assume that he also agreed with those sources on other subjects. When I cite an article by the Roman Catholic patristic scholar Robert Eno, we don't assume that I agree with Eno on every issue or even every comment he makes in the article I cited. Similarly, when Blogahon cites J.N.D. Kelly (who was an Anglican), we don't assume that he agrees with Kelly on every point. Earlier, I mentioned that Roman bishops were claiming universal jurisdiction prior to the time when Augustine wrote. That's one of the points I made against Blogahon's earlier claims. If a Roman bishop claims such authority while corresponding with Augustine or his contemporaries, and Augustine is using or citing that correspondence in a different context (e.g., Pelagianism), we don't assume that he also agreed with the authority claims made by the Roman bishop. That's especially true when there's so much evidence that Augustine didn't believe in a papacy (the evidence I cited in my first post here, which Blogahon still hasn't addressed).
Ok. really out of time on this one.
I posted a fuller response to Jason's recent here on a blog about eating out in Houston that I started but haven't got going.
Incidentally if you need restaurant recommendations in Houston I am your man.
Lastly, in addition to my last comment, I would recommend Luke Rivington's 'The Primivite Church and the See of Peter.' You can read it on Google.
Especially the section: "The Church of North Africa in the Days of St Augustine."
Matthew's position is really weak same with all Beggars contributors, you're just deflecting the questions and the answers were not even related to the question at hand by Blogahon....and mostly incohesive.
Who really hijacked Augutine? I guess it's the Catholic Church for he was a Bishop, a priest and was proclaimed a Doctor and Saint of the Catholic Church.
Augustine's teachings about the Succession from the SEAT of Peter, Church authority, Liturgical Worship and belief in Eucharist as the real Body and Blood of Christ are really authentic protestant in nature!
Thanks Jason and Matthew for showing us.
Jason said, "Augustine didn't believe in the concept of the papacy,.... the alleged Roman Catholic identity of other fathers, including an article on whether Irenaeus should be considered a Roman Catholic."
I really can't even CLASSIFY this kind of statement..is it just plain blindness? denial perphaps? or just sheer whatever?
I even let my Middle School kids read these words from Augustine if I for somehow have mistaken in my reading comprehension but lo and behold it is exactly what the palin reading of the text means!
How in the world do you understand these from Augustine? (Cap letters for emphasis)
---"Number the bishops even from the very "SEAT OF PETER," and see EVERY SUCCESSION IN THAT LINE OF FATHERS; that SEAT is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail."
---"THE CHURCH OF ROME...IN WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE HAS ALWAYS STOODFAST."
---"...the "SUCCESSION OF PRIESTS FROM THE VERY SEE OF THE APOSTLE PETER," unto whom our Lord after His Resurrection committed His sheep to be fed, down to the Episcopate, to this day, keeps me; "
---"For, if the ORDER OF THE SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS TO BE CONSIDERED, HOW MUCH MORE SURELY, TRULY, AND SAFELY DO WE NUMBER THEM FROM PETER, to whom the Lord said: 'Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." For to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement ... To Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Sircius, to Sircius Anastasius."
As I explained in a post that hasn’t appeared yet, Blogahon needs to interact with the evidence I cited against a papacy in Augustine. He also needs to explain how his evidence allegedly shows that Augustine believed in the concept, in light of what I wrote earlier in this thread.
As I explained, concepts like Petrine succession and primacy can be defined in different ways. It’s not enough for Blogahon (and other Catholics) to just quote Augustine referring to a Roman primacy, appealing to the Roman church in controversies, etc. I’ve explained why such quotations are insufficient. We wouldn’t conclude that an Eastern Orthodox scholar believes in the papacy because he refers to a primacy of Peter or a Roman primacy, for example. Because such concepts are defined in so many different ways, we have to be specific. The details of the doctrine of the papacy are what separate it from other concepts. To assume a papacy whenever somebody refers to some type of primacy of Peter, appeals to Rome during a controversy, etc. is erroneous. It suggests that the person doing it doesn’t even understand the issue that’s being discussed.
While we wait for Blogahon to address the relevant issues, I’ll cite another Roman Catholic scholar who’s more careful in making these distinctions than Blogahon has been. See Klaus Schatz’s discussion of Augustine and the papacy on pp. 33-36 of his Papal Primacy (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996). He writes, “In general, Augustine attributes a relatively substantial weight of authority to the Roman church in questions of faith but does not consider that it has a superior teaching office.” (p. 34) While Blogahon appeals to the Roman church’s correspondence with the North Africans to suggest Augustine’s acceptance of the papacy, Schatz notes that the correspondence shows a difference in how the two sides viewed Roman authority (p. 35). North Africa didn’t think as highly of Rome as Rome thought of itself. Schatz comments that the North Africans maintained “jurisdictional autonomy” (p. 35). They “took a firm stand against Roman intervention” (p. 35). The North Africans appealed to Rome when doing so was in their interest, but they also resisted Rome on other occasions and denied that Rome had universal jurisdiction. Contrary to what Blogahon suggested earlier, it wasn’t just a matter of the North Africans asserting their freedom to act locally while they remained under Roman authority. Rather, they denied that Rome could intervene against North Africa’s wishes even if Rome wanted to. Furthermore, “it was unthinkable that God would give the spirit of right judgment to a single individual, the Roman bishop, and withhold it from an entire council of bishops.” (pp. 35-36) Schatz also notes that the appeal to Rome during the Pelagian controversy was largely a practical matter, since “Pelagius lived in Rome, and Rome was the center of the Pelagian movement” (p. 34).
I suggest that people read Roman Catholic scholars like Robert Eno and Klaus Schatz and compare their argumentation and conclusions to those of Blogahon and his sources.
Jason said, "the alleged Roman Catholic identity of other fathers, including an article on whether Irenaeus should be considered a Roman Catholic."
St. Iraneus should not be considered Roman Catholic? What is this? Really? Then what he said probably was a protestant idea?
IRANEUS ON THE EUCHARIST:
"If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST..." (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
IRANEUS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH IN ROME, SUCCESSION OF BISHOP:
"...by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known CHURCH FOUNDED AND ORGANIZE AT ROME by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, ON ACCOUNT OF ITS PREEMINENT AUTHORITY ".
Now, it's just up to you to decide if you want to play blind, denial or just spin...choose wisely.
It’s not enough for Blogahon (and other Catholics) to just quote Augustine referring to a Roman primacy, appealing to the Roman church in controversies, etc. I’ve explained why such quotations are insufficient.
Why? Because you say so?
I am going to go ahead and believe that Augustine's affirmation about the Roman See are pretty important when trying to decided whether or not Augustine 'believed in the papacy.'
When I was in the PCA my pastor and the GA never refered to Rome as having primacy and never appealed to Rome in controversies. Oh, but we would not expect him to would we because he does not believe in the papacy.
Basically you are making an assertion 'that Augustine did not believe in the papacy' and then telling everybody what does and does not qualify as an argument against your position. You dismiss evidence that clearly demonstrates his view of Roman primacy for virtually no reason whatsover. That is not how dialog works. You don't get to dismiss arguments against your position willy nilly because you decide that you don't like them.
I think you've been interacted enough here (in comments) and ones that were deleted and the comment I linked to the other blog.
Jae wrote:
“How in the world do you understand these from Augustine?”
Why should I address those passages when you keep ignoring the ones I’ve cited?
You go on to post a list of passages for which you provide no source, and you don’t interact with what I said earlier about how concepts like succession and primacy have been defined in different ways. You’re reading the quotes you posted with some Roman Catholic assumptions that are under dispute. Concepts like Petrine primacy and succession from Peter aren’t equivalent to a papacy, and I’ve cited some illustrations of that fact (e.g., Cyprian, Eastern Orthodoxy). You’re repeating bad arguments while ignoring the responses that have already been posted.
Jae,
If you haven't noticed, the pattern here is to diminish what the fathers actually said either by calling their work fraudulent (Bugay) or that they were confused/misled (Bugay) or telling us that their plain words don't really mean what they are saying (Engwer, Shultz et al).
We are told that Augustine's explicit affirmation of basic tenants of the papacy (succession from Peter, communion with the same and appeals for authority to the same) mean nothing when discussing whether or not Augustine believed in the papacy???
What planet are we on?
Jae wrote:
“St. Iraneus should not be considered Roman Catholic? What is this? Really? Then what he said probably was a protestant idea?”
You don’t even know how to spell his name, and you’re misrepresenting the issue under discussion. I didn’t say that Irenaeus’ views were “probably a Protestant idea”.
You aren’t interacting with anything I said about Irenaeus’ view of the eucharist or his view of Rome. On the eucharist, see here. On Rome, see here and the other relevant posts here. Instead of just assuming your own interpretations of the relevant passages, why don’t you interact with the counterarguments?
Jason,
Pointing to the Orthodox acceptance of Roman primacy as evidence to argue that Augustine could have held the same but rejected the papacy only suggests a possibility, it does not prove anything.
You have to contend with the statements of Augustine that I've already cited as respect to the authority of the Roman See and his appeals to the Roman See in controversy.
What Orthodox bishops have appealed to the Roman bishop to solve doctrinal disputes and for the Roman Bishop 'to close the matter' since AD 1054? None.
What Orthodox council sent letters to the Roman Bishop to settle disputes since 1054? None.
What Orthodox Bishop has said that to be removed from communion with the Bishop or Rome is to be on a dead branch? None.
You are attributing to Augustine ideas that he never taught.
Further, I might ask why you aren't Orthodox?
Why do you place yourself squarely outside of the tradition that you are trying to prop up as an authority in this question?
Blogahon wrote:
“We are told that Augustine's explicit affirmation of basic tenants of the papacy (succession from Peter, communion with the same and appeals for authority to the same) mean nothing when discussing whether or not Augustine believed in the papacy???”
Peter’s existence is also a “basic tenant of the papacy”, but we don’t conclude that it’s sufficient to cite somebody’s belief in Peter’s existence in order to prove his belief in a papacy. The issue isn’t whether a papacy involves concepts like Petrine succession and “appeals for authority”. Rather, the issue is whether only a papacy involves such things or whether, instead, more evidence is needed to distinguish the papacy from other concepts. These aren’t just distinctions that I, Matthew Schultz, and other Evangelicals are making. Rather, they’re distinctions that scholars, including scholars of your own denomination, have made. We make such distinctions in order to differentiate between a primacy of honor and one of jurisdiction, succession to one aspect of Peter’s ministry and succession to another aspect of it, etc. To ignore such distinctions is at least careless, if not dishonest. We know that many individuals and movements have made these distinctions over the centuries. I cited the examples of Cyprian and Eastern Orthodoxy. To lump a primacy of honor together with a primacy of jurisdiction, for example, is erroneous and results in false and misleading conclusions about church history. Who but an obscurantist would want to continue to ignore such distinctions even after having been corrected repeatedly? You can’t even make sense of church history if you’re as careless with these concepts as people like you and Jae have been.
As I said earlier, you’re framing the argument in a misleading way when you ask us to just follow the alleged “explicit affirmations” you’ve cited from Augustine. You’re ignoring the passages I’ve cited. The issue is how to best make sense of all of the data. You don’t do that by copying and pasting the most pro-papal passages you can find from Catholic web sites, then reading those passages with a series of disputed Roman Catholic assumptions in mind.
Blogahon wrote:
“What Orthodox council sent letters to the Roman Bishop to settle disputes since 1054?... Further, I might ask why you aren't Orthodox?”
You’re making a series of dubious assumptions.
I mentioned Eastern Orthodoxy as an example of how the concepts you’ve cited in support of a papacy can be interpreted in different ways. It doesn’t follow that I should be Eastern Orthodox if I’m not Roman Catholic. My position is that Augustine was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. And Augustine alone doesn’t define Christianity for me anyway. I wouldn’t become Eastern Orthodox just because Augustine agreed with Eastern Orthodoxy on an issue. You’ll have to explain how you’re arriving at the conclusion that I should be Eastern Orthodox.
Your citation of the era “since 1054” is likewise dubious. The hostility that’s existed between Orthodoxy and Catholicism since then is significantly different than Augustine’s relationship with Rome. There’s a gray area between viewing the bishop of Rome as a Pope and viewing him as Eastern Orthodoxy has since 1054.
You and some other Catholic posters here seem to be ignoring a lot of shades of gray on a lot of issues. Your approach toward church history is simplistic. You’d never accept such a simplistic approach on other issues, where Catholics offer more complex arguments for their position (papal infallibility, the historicity of the assumption of Mary, etc.). Be careful with your simplicity. It won’t serve you so well in other contexts.
You and some other Catholic posters here seem to be ignoring a lot of shades of gray on a lot of issues.
It seems to me that you and others here ignore the black and white.
Be careful with your simplicity. It won’t serve you so well in other contexts.
Jason. I am Catholic. I believe all that the Catholic Church professes not because I have found a fancy enough argument for their existence in the early church (although I do believe that the Church's doctrines are remarkably vindicated by the fathers) but because I believe that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus and that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church in truth.
So, your assessment as my treatment as simple or not simple enough is meaningless.
How can the Roman Catholic Church be guided in to all truth by the Holy Spirit when they declare bindingly as dogma things that are historically false?
Mary was not sinless, nor was she assumed in to heaven. There is no serious person on earth who denies that there is no evidence at all - no biblical, patristic or historical evidence anywhere - to suggest any thing to the contrary. The only people who bother to argue for the truth of this dogma just argue as you did, that it's true 'cuz the church sez so and everything the church sez is true.
There was no papacy until hundreds of years after the Apostles. They certainly hadn't thought of the idea. History shows not just a lack of evidence but the impossibility of a papacy for the first century of the Church. There is no Biblical papacy, there is no patristic papacy. If Rome tells you that the papacy has always been believed, then Rome is lying, and if Rome is lying, then they are not being led by the Holy Spirit in to all truth.
(corrected typo from previous)
Nice little slippery slope argument you have there Mr. Lollard, and with evidence which has been posted that is contrary to your invalid argumentation - whom do you expect to be believing you?
Earlier Mr. Engwer posted a "Three Part" essay (which really appears to be a "two part" with the third being a tag-a-long from a different conversation). The argument made was if we (Catholics) have not read what Mr. Engwer has posted, then we're not considering the evidence. Well, I've been going over his "Three Parter" and I will post an answer to it. My response will be much too cumbersome for a combox reply, so it will be posted on my blog. Now, before I get accused of creating "rabbit trails," please remember from which blog THIS thread began. Ah yes, it was the CathApol Blog. So, for those who don't like "rabbit trails," this discussion should be over there anyway.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Clearly the catholics won the argument here. Praise be Jesus!
Getting back to the original post of this blog..Do ANY of the Roman Catholics that are posting here think the original Augustine quote contradicts Sola Scriptura?
If so, how?
Thanks.
-Joe
This mystery of eternal life has been made known by the ministry of angels from the beginning of the human race. It was revealed to those who were fit to receive the knowledge by means of signs and symbols appropriate to the times. Later, the Hebrew people was gathered and united in a kind of community designed to perform this sacred function of revelation. In that people the future course of events, from the coming of Christ to the present day, and even beyond, was prophesied through the agency of some who realized, and some who did not realize, what they were doing. In the course of time, this people was scattered among the nations to bear witness to the Scriptures, which foretold the coming salvation of Christ. For not only all the prophesies contained in words, not only all the precepts for the conduct of life which shape men's character and their piety and are contained in the Scriptures, but also the ceremonies, the sacred rites, the festal days, and everything which concerned with the homage due to God (the Greeks call it latreia) - all these were symbols and predictions that find their fulfilment in Christ, so as to give eternal life to those who believe. We believe that they have been fulfilled; we observe that they are being fulfilled; we are convinced that they will go on being fulfilled.
(St. Augustine, "City of God," Book VII)
Getting back to the original post of this blog..Do ANY of the Roman Catholics that are posting here think the original Augustine quote contradicts Sola Scriptura?
Joe, this is a good question. What the Romanist is attempting to prove with this quote from Augustine is basically the concept of Lex orandi, lex credendi (law of prayer is the law of belief), or Lex orandi est lex credendi et agendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief of belief and action), or yet another form, Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi (Let the law of prayer establish the law of belief)...i.e., basically stated, "liturgical practice sets precedence for faith," which in turn they equate with revelation.
The Romanists are attempting to allege that this rule/law (so described above, broadly speaking) is revelatory in nature according to Augustine. I think they are attempting to read into Augustine something he did not ascribe to revelation. Contrary to their claim, Augustine was merely stating, from his perspective, that those things which followed signified the revelatory acts of God which preceded.
The translation provided by the Romanists, "symbols and predictions" (significaverunt et praenuntiaverunt, PL 41:221) is, I think, better rendered as "signified and fore-announced," neither of which demands a priori the concept of revelation.
The Romanist makes the mistake of confounding what Augustine calls "the precepts for conduct" with "actual subsequent conduct" and Augustine's interpretation/perspective of the *fulfillment* of prophecy, with prophecy itself, as though he affirms that successive practice was equally revelatory in nature.
It's akin to the argument Dr. Sungenis made in his debate with Dr. White recently regarding the papal dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary, "all we need is to have people talking about it," (or in Augustine's case, as the Romanists read into him, people doing it, i.e. showing and indicating by their actions), and with the wave of the magisterium's hand, it translates into "revelation."
Henry wrote:
“Clearly the catholics won the argument here.”
Which Catholics? The Catholic scholars I cited, who contradicted what the Catholics in this thread have argued?
And what argument are you referring to? James Swan’s initial argument has been ignored. Are you referring to later arguments about other subjects (e.g., Augustine’s positions on other issues and what Irenaeus believed)? Every Catholic who’s responded to me on Augustine and Irenaeus so far has ignored the material I linked. They’ve posted their own quotes from Augustine and Irenaeus, apparently lifted from Catholic web sites. (And some of the quotes either haven’t been documented or are only partially documented, so that nobody would be able to look up the passages themselves based on the information the Catholics here have provided.) They ignored my own material on Augustine and Irenaeus that I linked, they’ve read their own quotes with disputed Roman Catholic assumptions in mind, and they claim that their reading is obvious without having to interact much, if at all, with the counterarguments. Why should anybody consider that sort of approach convincing?
When Origen equates all Christians to Peter, or Cyprian refers to all bishops as successors of Peter, for example, do you read those fathers with the same assumptions that you apply to Augustine? Do you conclude that all Christians or all bishops must therefore have universal jurisdiction in the belief system of those fathers? Or do you read men like Origen and Cyprian with the same sort of category distinctions that I (and scholars in general) apply to Augustine?
If people will read the articles I linked on Augustine and Irenaeus, they’ll see that I addressed far more than the papacy and the eucharist. They’ll also see that I cited scholars, including Roman Catholics, making some of the same points I’ve made. Copying and pasting quotes from a Catholic web site, reading those quotes with disputed Catholic assumptions in mind, and ignoring the counterarguments shouldn’t be convincing to anybody. But it is convincing to some Catholics. Why don’t you explain why it ought to be convincing to the rest of us? It’s not convincing to your own denomination’s scholars. Argue with them.
I’ve been citing Catholic scholars who disagree with some of the arguments used by the Catholics in this thread. What I’ve cited from those scholars has been ignored. But I would suggest that people read those scholars for themselves, such as the article by Robert Eno that I cited and the relevant sections of Klaus Schatz’s book. For example, Eno discusses passages that Catholics in this thread have been citing, like Augustine’s Letter 53. He includes a lot of the relevant context that the Catholics here are ignoring (probably, in part, because they’re ignorant of that context).
Here are some of Eno’s comments (though I recommend reading the whole article):
“If the council was Augustine's prime instrument for the discussion and solution of problems, the role of Rome in his view of the Church is not so easy to assess. One must begin with his views of Peter in the New Testament. Peter was mentioned rather often, especially in his homilies. Peter was the first of the Apostles but the accent was usually on Peter as symbol. When Peter received some prerogative or power (e.g. the keys) in the name of the Church, the gift was being given to the Church….[quoting Augustine] ‘For it was not one man but the unity of the Church that received these keys. Hence Peter's greatness is proclaimed because he represented the universality and unity of the Church when it was said to him 'I give to you' what was given to all . . . .’ If the keys were literally given to Peter alone, then how did the whole Church make use of these keys every day?...The Donatists at the beginning of the dispute [over Donatism] had appealed to Constantine. He had turned it over to Miltiades and a Roman council. When the Donatists refused to accept their verdict, Constantine convoked a council at Aries. There is no evidence that Augustine saw anything especially objectionable with this supercession of a Roman decision…. Peter was the first of the Apostles, holding the principalus of the Apostolate. But any Apostle would be greater than any bishop as the Apostolate is greater than the episcopate…Why did Rome suddenly become involved at this time [the time of the Pelagian controversy], when its role had been minor in the Donatist problem? The Africans had condemned Pelagian teachings only to find their work undone by a Palestinian council. The condemnation by one part of the Church was neutralized by the approval of another part. If the prestigious see of Rome with its worldwide respect approved of an African decision, then it would have a more lasting and definitive effect than it would have had otherwise. Another significant aspect was the Roman connection of Pelagius himself. This monk had spent many years in Rome and had acquired a reputation as a serious Christian working for reform. He had circles of friends and disciples in both Roman clergy and laity. It would have been disastrous for their cause if their condemnation had been undone by Roman approval. As the Africans wrote to Pope Innocent, the papal views had ‘great weight with him (pelagius).’” ("Doctrinal Authority In Saint Augustine", Augustinian Studies, Vol. 12 - 1981 , pp. 165-167, n. 118 on p. 167, pp. 169-170)
And Eno makes many other comments that are relevant here, accompanied by documentation. He concludes that, for Augustine, “a plenary council [not the bishop of Rome] is the ultimate resort for decision making” (p. 172).
I suggest that people contrast the level of argumentation and documentation in the work of a Catholic scholar like Eno with what we’ve seen from the Catholics in this thread.
I have a thread at Triablogue that addresses some of the faulty assumptions that Catholics seem to be bringing to this discussion.
Jason, thanks for all your clarifications here.
Jason wrote: And Eno makes many other comments that are relevant here, accompanied by documentation. He concludes that, for Augustine, “a plenary council [not the bishop of Rome] is the ultimate resort for decision making” (p. 172).
This is indeed not only Augustine's position, but the view of the whole African church in his day. When Pope Celestine attempted to intervene on behalf of Apiarius, the African Church with Augustine responded to the bishop of Rome in the following manner.
Africans to the bishop of Rome, Celestine: "Let your Holiness reject, as is worthy of you, that unprincipled taking shelter with you of Presbyters likewise, and inferior clergy, both because by no ordinance of the Fathers hath the Church of Africa been deprived of this right, and the Nicene Decrees have most plainly committed not only the clergy of inferior rank, but the Bishops themselves, to their own Metropolitans. For they have ordained with great wisdom and justice that all matters should be terminated where they arise; and they did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any Province for the Priests of Christ [i.e. the Bishops] wisely to discern and firmly to maintain that which is right, especially since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment may appeal to the Council of his Province or even to a general Council [of all Africa], unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual with justice and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of Priests [i.e. Bishops] assembled in Council." For translation, see Edward Denny, Papalism: Atreatise on the Claims of the Papacy as set forth in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum (London: Rivingtons, 1912), pp. 307-309; and Mansi, iv. 515, 516.
And yes, he would indeed HAVE to be "converted" for he was most definitely a Catholic!
That's never been the issue.
It's really amazing to see non-Catholics embrace him so much!
Which ones? Are you referring to the same unqualified ambiguous group your co-blogger meant? Sure, if you keep things vague enough, you can make all sorts of statements without having to defend them.
I strongly encourage non-Catholics to read more from St. Augustine, and not just what they are shown from other non-Catholic sources.
Yes, I encourage non-Catholic Romanists likewise to read contexts.
In JMJ
I'll no longer allow you to post such blasphemy on this blog. You're welcome to post, but please refrain from using this abbreviation from now on. If you post using it, I will delete your comments.
No, you just like to create them and then refuse to follow back in a trail of your own making!
I typically ignore material from Lvka. In this instance, I'm not willing to waste my time on link that has probably has nothing to do with the misused quote your co-blogger posted.
Now, to your complaint about a "site which wants money..." what's so wrong with that?! IF someone feels so inclined to click on a link (which the URL you posted happens to be invalid) to support what they are reading - what's it to you?! Running a website costs money too - it's not free, like blogspot.
Romanists are quite fond of adding the donation button to their websites. If people want to support your inferior work, they are free to do so.
Do you know how many donations that link has produced? I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know the grand total in over 10 years is $10.00. The ONE TIME that link paid anything caught me a bit off-guard.
That it is good to hear. Romanists seem to think your work doesn't deserve support. I suggest taking the donation button off, and stop impersonating an apologetics organization deserving of donations.
So get off the high-horse and stop judging others for simply posting a link for assistance in paying EXPENSES.
My bringing it up had a specific reason. I suggest you scroll up, and re-read what I wrote. I shouldn't have to explain a comment that was originally quite clear.
As for the allegedly "rich history of books expounding on sola scriptura..." whatever!
If you're not interested in defining your terms and locating the right target, that's another indication your work is sub-standard and to be avoided by thinking Romanists.
Your response is you're not taking it back because of an unused link on a tangentially related website? Have you ever heard of the term "non sequitur?"
Your empire produced nonsense with that Augustine quote. You ask for money to keep your empire going. It's not my problem your fellow Romanists don't support you. I guess if you produced credible and helpful material, maybe they would.
My response will be much too cumbersome for a combox reply, so it will be posted on my blog.
If I respond to anything you say, it will be here on this blog. Others are welcome to visit your empire and dialog with you. Who knows? Maybe someone will give you a donation.
>> sw: In JMJ
>
> I'll no longer allow you to post
> such blasphemy on this blog.
> You're welcome to post, but
> please refrain from using this
> abbreviation from now on. If you
> post using it, I will delete
> your comments.
This is your blog, you are the pope here, so I will abide by your wishes. I wonder though, why is such an abbreviation considered to be a blasphemy? It simply means "in the spirit of the Holy Family," which one would wonder why any Christian would object to. Jesus, Mary and Joseph are, or should be, models for us all. Perhaps you'll reconsider your request, regardless I will comply with your wishes.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
(I trust "To the greater glory of God" is not offensive to you?)
I had written a line-by-line response to Mr. Swan, but upon reflection, I've decided against it.
Let me just say, the blogosphere is not a world of "empires." To quote someone we all know, "I'm just a guy with a blog," and readers are quite free to browse my blog as well as this one or any other. These are not "empires" for any of us.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
CathApol writes:
It simply means "in the spirit of the Holy Family," which one would wonder why any Christian would object to.
No, it's not as innocuous as you're describing it.
I've been wondering what it stands for. Is it Jesus, Mary, Joseph?
>> sw: It simply means "in the
>> spirit of the Holy Family,"
>> which one would wonder why
>> any Christian would object to.
>
> MS: No, it's not as innocuous
> as you're describing it.
sw: Well, Matthew, I'm afraid it is. It's merely "In Jesus, Mary and Joseph," who are the "Holy Family" and I assure you, when I had been signing that way it was truly to be read "in the spirit of the Holy Family" - who should be examples to all of us. It is a bit saddening to see non-Catholic react so violently to such statements which should be common to us all, but since something like 'JMJ' has been primarily used by Catholics - it has been branded "blasphemy."
> John Lollard said...
> I've been wondering what it
> stands for. Is it Jesus, Mary,
> (and) Joseph?
sw: Yes.
Scott Windsor: It's what you mean when you say "Mary" that we object to.
Scott/CathApol
Why it is offensive to me is because for your faith to assign this sort of "venerable" family holiness to Joseph and Mary is to go against the Teachings of Scripture, Who, the Holy Spirit, assigns to us a True Family identity and gives us pause when we do otherwise, which really is what you purport when you end your comments that way.
Consider these points of view? They might shed some light on why I take it adversely.
Pro 29:25 The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe.
Pro 29:26 Many seek the face of a ruler, but it is from the LORD that a man gets justice.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Gal 6:15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
For you to suggest otherwise, which is what ending your comments [JMJ] does, is to conflate contrary to the Word of God?
Here is the proper way to enter the sheepfold on earth and after, into Heaven:
Joh 10:1 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.
Joh 10:2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
Joh 10:3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
Rev 22:21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Scott, since you're here and willing to commet, I dunno if the blog administrators would object, but could you explain what you think it means to be "in" the "spirit" of the "holy family"? I'm really rather puzzled by this, and it sounds almost like an LDS statement to me.
"No, it's not as innocuous as you're describing it". And:
"It's what you mean when you say "Mary" that we object to".
What about Mary is threatening to Protestants? Is this a threat that Christ himself would share, ie, is Christ also threatened by Mary?
What about Mary is threatening to Protestants? Is this a threat that Christ himself would share, ie, is Christ also threatened by Mary?
It is not threatening; it is blasphemous. Imagine the Jews saying "Baal is good; we worship Yahweh, and Baal only gets hyperdulia. But Baal does some pretty cool things for us and we want to honor him for it. Our honor of Baal is not intended to take anything away from Yahweh."
Imagine this being said to a jealous God: Exodus 20:5, 34:14, Deut 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 32:16, 32:21, Joshua 24:19, Ezekiel 36:5, 6, 39:25, Nahum 1:2.
"It is not threatening; it is blasphemous. Imagine the Jews saying "Baal is good; we worship Yahweh, and Baal only gets hyperdulia. But Baal does some pretty cool things for us and we want to honor him for it. Our honor of Baal is not intended to take anything away from Yahweh.""
So, the actual threat is that Mary, called Blessed, is comparable to Baal?
Again, it is not a threat.
Mary is "blessed" because she was the mother of the Savior.
She does not hear you when you talk to her; in that respect, yes, she is like Baal.
Dozie
you bring out another doozee, again!
How about this as being the main reason for following the Truth?
Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Christ has nothing to fear. I, you, everyone who wants freedom by Truth,on the other hand, are fallible human beings. Truth therefore becomes important to our way of life; and from the sense I get from you, one of us has been deceived by a false religion and lives in error of the Truth!
And you certainly know what that means when we weigh that with what Christ teaches here:
Mat 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
There is only One way to Heaven. It is the Way of Truth and Life in the Way in this life!
On whose way do you suppose you are on, then? On the way of Truth and Life?
Hmmmmmmm?
I would be happy to add more comments, as requested, but this thread has gone from St. Augustine on sola scriptura to St. Augustine on the papacy to alleged blasphemy regarding an abbreviation (IMHO, due to Protestant misunderstanding) and we're drifting into the nonsensical comparison of the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of our Lord and Savior, to the false/pagan god of Baal.
So, before I continue said topics in this thread, I would prefer Mr. Swan or one of the other hosts here grant me the indulgence to do so. I kinda doubt that is going to happen.
Scott<<<
I'm just putting things into context for one of our commenters, Dozie, who asked some questions because sometimes he has a hard time understanding things.
CathApol writes:
sw: Well, Matthew, I'm afraid it is.
Only if we assume as true certain distinctively Roman Catholic descriptions of the "Holy Family," ascriptions of abstinence, sinlessness, and intercession via the cult of saints. The phrase is heavily freighted with Roman Catholic theology, with it often being written as a prayer to not only Jesus, but Mary and Joseph as well.
It's merely "In Jesus, Mary and Joseph," who are the "Holy Family" and I assure you, when I had been signing that way it was truly to be read "in the spirit of the Holy Family" - who should be examples to all of us.
Except I don't think Mary and Joseph, being fallen sinners, should be invoked as examples to us in the same breadth as Jesus. The Bible has one example to follow, and his name is Jesus.
It is a bit saddening to see non-Catholic react so violently
This tendentious language will be dismissed for what it is.
to such statements which should be common to us all, but since something like 'JMJ' has been primarily used by Catholics - it has been branded "blasphemy."
Do you have evidence we're operating merely through guilt by association? Or is that a convenient motive to impute to your opponents?
For examples of how JMJ has been or is used as a prayer to the entire Holy Family, and not just as an "example," see this thread at the Catholic Answers Forums:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=204419
"I'm just putting things into context for one of our commenters, Dozie, who asked some questions because sometimes he has a hard time understanding things".
I readily admit that I have a very difficult time understanding the Protestant mindset in general and how anyone who could remotely name Jesus as Lord is able to compare the mother of the savior to Baal. It is a very sad time for Protestantism. With its seemingly unchecked sense of freedom, Protestantism often marks itself as the al-Qaida of christiandom.
I have come to see however that behind all the radical behavior and pronouncements of many Protestants is a deep seated fear and uncertainty about what they believe. The Catholic Church is then a major stumbling block and the truth they must wrestle with.
Dozie: I didn't say "Mary = Baal". I made the comparison, "The way Catholics treat Mary = the way the Israelites followed Baal."
You are right, the Roman Catholic Church is a major stumbling block. Over time it has been a far worse stumbling block than anything else in history. It has kept many a true Christian from a right relationship with God.
I readily admit that I have a very difficult time understanding the Protestant mindset in general and how anyone who could remotely name Jesus as Lord is able to compare the mother of the savior to Baal. It is a very sad time for Protestantism
Amen Dozie; well said.
"I readily admit that I have a very difficult time understanding the Protestant mindset in general "
I don't pretend to speak for all Protestants, but let me try to help you out.
God is glorious. He is the Glorious One. He is mighty, He is powerful, He is merciful and just, He is loving and humble, He is the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the Creator of all things, the Ultimate, Sovereign, timeless and eternal I AM who has always been and will always be. God is so immensely glorious that he outshines all things. He is so spectacularly good - definitionally good - completely and perfectly gloriously good that the thought of bringing a creature into the picture to stand in for him isn't just blasphemous but ridiculous.
God is worthy of all praise. God is so worthy of praise, that we can not exhaust praising him. Even if it was okay to praise angels or fallen saints, there is just no time as God is worthy of more praise than we will ever be able to give.
God is wonderful. God is so wonderful, his love so much sweeter than wine, that worshipping him is its own reward. Even if it were okay to praise created things in heaven or on earth, it doesn't even sound like a good idea. Why bother, when we can praise the Righteous One, the eternal Father, and love and be loved by him as children?
God is powerful. God is so powerful and so loving and kind that he meets every single one of our needs and he loves to meet our needs. He loves to be close to us and he loves to comfort us. Even if it were okay to pray to angels or the dead, why would we waste even a single breath of prayer on them when we can appeal directly to the Father, who controls all things in the universe, who by the Blood of the Lamb inclines to hear our prayers?
That said, it is not okay to pray to angels or the dead. It is not okay to go carousing the morgue looking for an image to set up on an altar. It is not okay to give glory or honor or worship or devotion to anything or anyone except for YHWH, to whom we are indebted beyond our ability to pay.
Jesus is our Lover. He is the Bridegroom. We must be unswervingly faithful to Him, because He deserves it. He deserves everything, and He is so astoundingly amazing - beautiful, faithful, merciful, loving, serving, humble, kind - that nothing at all even enters our minds during worship but the Lamb. We do not look left or right to check out the people in the pew as we walk down the aisle.
God is so good that he stands alone, above all created things. The Protestant mind is beholden to God's goodness.
Hopefully, I have not spoken brashly,and hopefully this is will help you to understand our mindset when it comes to God's glory.
Love in Christ,
John Lollard
The Romanist mindset is such that it must create a straw man, the construct of which is in turn employed by them to suggest that Protestants either fear Mary or do her dishonor. The truth of the matter is that this Blessed lady, noble woman that she was, would have repudiated this modern day mindset that ascribes to her titles and honors that would have made her blush with shame.
Augustine has aptly instructed us...
Augustine (354-430): Let not our religion be the worship of dead men. If they lived pious lives, it must not be supposed that they seek divine honours. They want us to worship him, in whose light they rejoice to have us as sharers in their merit. They are to be honoured by imitation and not adored with religious rites. If they lived evil lives, wherever they now are, they are not to be worshipped. John H. S. Burleigh, trans., The Library of Christian Classics, Augustine: Earlier Writings, Of True Religion, lv, 108 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 254.
Moreover, Epiphanius has instructed us that error has arisen on her account...
Epiphanius (310/320-403): Let no one eat of the error which has arisen on St. Mary’s account. Even though ‘The tree is lovely’ it is not for food; and even though Mary is all fair, and is holy and held in honor, she is not to be worshiped.
But again, these women are “renewing the potion for Fortune and preparing the table for the demon and not for God,” as the Scripture says, “And the women grind flour, and their sons gather wood to make cakes for the host of heaven.” Such women should be silenced by Jeremiah, and not frighten the world. They must not say, ‘We honor the queen of heaven.’ Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 79. Against Collyridians, 7,7-8,2 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 627.
The fact is that Romanists do honor her, with the forbidden title, as "the queen of heaven." He instructs us further...
Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death—as the Scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce her soul”— her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their Master. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 78. Against Antidicomarians, 78, 23 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 619.
Romanists do superstitiously honor her to excess with the title, "the queen of heaven." It is a reproach and shame that Romanists obtrude upon the memory of this holy and blessed lady.
Jesus said before He died on the Cross, “Woman, behold your son.” He then said to the apostle: “Behold your mother.” (John 19:25)
For nearly two millennia Catholics, acting as “the apostle whom He loved,” have lovingly taken Mary into their homes and have honored her. We are faithfully and lovingly doing what Our Lord told us to do: we “BEHOLD” our Blessed mother.
Prots just pay lip service if any at all.
Jae, we pay far more than lip service. We do honor to the text of Scripture and what the Word of God truly says about Mary.
…standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
D.A. Carson, one of the foremost commentators on the Gospel of John, says: The fact that the beloved disciple took Mary into his home, rather than the reverse, rather favors the view that [John] was commissioned to look after her. Thus, the [anachronistic] reading of the text favored by many Catholic exegetes tends to move in a direction contrary to an historical reading of the text. Certainly it is true that both Jesus and John use historical events, institutions and utterances in symbolic ways to teach deeper truths to those with eyes to see. But such theological readings are in line with the historical reading. In this instance, however, the Fourth Gospel focuses on the exclusiveness of the Son, the finality of his crossword, the promise of the Paraclete as the definitive aid to the believers after Jesus has been glorified, and correspondingly de-emphasizes Mary by giving her almost no part to play in the narrative, and by reporting a rebuke, however gentle, that Jesus administered to her (2.4). With such themes lying on the surface of the text [of this Gospel], it is most natural to see in [these verses] an expression of Jesus' love and care for his mother, a thoughtful provision for her needs at the hour of supreme devastation. (Commentary on John 617-618).
He continues, "to argue, then [as Roman Catholics do], that this scene is symbolic of a continuing role for Mary as the church comes under her care is without adequate contextual control." This means, in Carson's understated way of saying things, that the meaning you assign to it is made up and has no basis whatsoever in the text. "It is so anachronistic an interpretation that it is difficult to imagine how it could have gained such sway apart from the developments of centuries of later traditions."
Your "interpretation" is yet another pure fiction that Rome has forced its disciples to follow in the service of its own deluded quest for authority.
Jae wrote:
"For nearly two millennia Catholics, acting as 'the apostle whom He loved,' have lovingly taken Mary into their homes and have honored her. We are faithfully and lovingly doing what Our Lord told us to do: we 'BEHOLD' our Blessed mother."
That claim is so vague as to be applicable to many views of Mary. The group criticized by Epiphanius (see David King's citations above) could offer the same sort of justification you're offering.
Is the Roman Catholic view of Mary historically traceable "for nearly two millennia"? No, it isn't.
You'll have to explain how "beholding" Mary involves viewing her as a sinless perpetual virgin who was bodily assumed to Heaven, to whom we pray, etc. Explain how you get such implications from that one word. When church fathers and Roman bishops for hundreds of years contradicted your view of Mary, were they "beholding" her? If so, what allegedly distinguishes their "beholding" as acceptable from the supposedly unacceptable behavior of Protestants? If those church fathers and Roman bishops could have a lower view of Mary than you have, yet still be "beholding" her, then don't you need something more than John 19:27 to justify Roman Catholicism's surpassing of that "beholding"?
Has Roman Catholicism infallibly interpreted John 19:27 for you, or are you just giving us your private judgment?
Along those lines, How Many Popes Does it Take to Deny the Immaculate Conception?
“Has Roman Catholicism infallibly interpreted John 19:27 for you, or are you just giving us your private judgment?”
Is it not irrelevant and hypocritical to ask the above? What is the value of the Church’s “infallibly interpreted” bible verses to you? How many infallibly interpreted verses do you accept? Your answer is quite predictable; hence the question you ask is only a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the Mary of Scripture and Tradition.
Here is a sample of infallibly interpreted verses (Marcellino D’Abrosio’s website). See how many you accept currently and remind yourself what your attitude will be with respect to any future interpretations. Bottom-line, you really don’t want an answer to the question you ask and that is game-playing:
John 3:5
When Jesus here says that we must be born of water and the Spirit, he implies that real water must be used for a valid baptism.
Luke 22:19 & I Cor. 11:24
When Jesus said to the apostles, “Do this in memory of me,” he meant to confer priestly ordination.
John 20:23
The power conferred on the apostles to bind and loose sins authorized them and their successors to forgive sins in God’s name in the sacrament of penance and reconciliation.
John 20:22
The sacrament of penance was instituted by Jesus who truly conveyed the Holy Spirit to the apostles on Easter Sunday afternoon.
Ro. 5:12
Adam’s sin truly caused all of his descendants to be born into a state of separation from God called Original Sin.
Jas. 5:14
Christ instituted the sacrament of the anointing of the sick.
Here is a sample of infallibly interpreted bible verses:
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/854/Scripture_Texts_Interpreted_by_the_Church.html
Dozie -- First, one might say that we appreciate your courage in posting these. But the posting itself prompts some questions.
If this is the sum total of verses that have been "infallibly" interpreted, then how do you know what the rest of the Bible means?
But second, in the spirit of "interpreting with the mind of the church," I wouldn't say that the Orthodox (one of the other "infallible" churches) have the same interpretations as you (i.e., John 20:22), and of course, we could perform an exegesis on those verses ("what do they actually say") and compare that with the official interpretations, and I guarantee you we would not find in those verses what you think they mean.
Third, we couldn't even take D'Abrosio's word on what these mean, for we would have to return to the source documents where such things are defined.
And fourth, it is the question of motive: these "infallible interpretations" tend to confirm only (and exclusively Roman Catholic) views of things. And this view is further supported by the second point, above.
And finally, if this is all that has been "infallibly interpreted," what good, really, is the much vaunted "infallibility" if SO MUCH MORE has been left to question?
Given these questions, can you, in honesty, admit that you see the problems that WE have with Roman Catholicism?
How many infallibly interpreted verses do you accept? Your answer is quite predictable; hence the question you ask is only a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the Mary of Scripture and Tradition.
On the positive side, we believe that Scripture itself IS GOD's OWN INTERPRETATION of His own acts in history. That is, God acts in history (i.e., interactions with the patriarchs, rescuing Israel from Egypt, etc.), and the Scripture, the writing down of these events from multiple perspectives, is GOD'S OWN INFALLIBLE INTERPRETATION.
Scripture IS what we are to know about these things -- having an "infallible interpreter" of God's infallible interpretation is like having a (false) echo -- the echo doesn't say what the original says.
Second, regarding the Mary of Tradition, you must be aware that some of the earliest understandings of Mary in tradition come from spurious documents? (And these spurious documents are held as true?)
Can you see how this "Mary of Tradition" is just a bad echo of the legitimate process that God followed?
"Given these questions, can you, in honesty, admit that you see the problems that WE have with Roman Catholicism?"
BTW, it is the Catholic Church. The problem you have with the Church is failure to accept her authority, period. I was trying to show that when Protestants ask the question, "has that verse been infallibly interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church?", they are not being sincere.
"On the positive side, we believe that Scripture itself IS GOD's OWN INTERPRETATION of His own acts in history. That is, God acts in history (i.e., interactions with the patriarchs, rescuing Israel from Egypt, etc.), and the Scripture, the writing down of these events from multiple perspectives, is GOD'S OWN INFALLIBLE INTERPRETATION".
Do I accept your assertion because you say so? If no, by what authority am I bound to take you seriously?
Once again, when you come up with the scripture question, you have got to establish first and foremost that you know what the canon is and how you got to know that. Without the ability to show precisely how you came to regard the scriptures in their exact number and contents as the Word of God, I do not think you have the right to the Scriptures to begin with.
The Christian bible is a Church book and those who wish to remain outside of the Church deny themselves the legitimate right to the "Book".
Do I accept your assertion because you say so? If no, by what authority am I bound to take you seriously?
It's funny you ask this. I've been intending to get to the outline of all this provided in the Kostenberger/Kruger work, which gives a good (historical and covenantally-based) overview of how all of this took place.
Of course you don't take my word for it. But neither should you take the church's [apparently sorely lacking] word over God's word, when the two don't say the same thing.
Dozie writes:
"Is it not irrelevant and hypocritical to ask the above? What is the value of the Church’s 'infallibly interpreted' bible verses to you?"
No, it wasn't "irrelevant and hypocritical" for me to ask the question. I was addressing an inconsistency between Jae's argumentation and a common Roman Catholic argument. I don't have to accept that argument in order to note an inconsistency between it and the argumentation of a Catholic, like Jae. Since I'm not Roman Catholic, and I reject the common Catholic argument in question, your suggestion that I should be as consistent with that argument as a Catholic ought to be doesn't make sense. Why should a non-Catholic be expected to be consistent with a Catholic argument?
And your list of allegedly infallible Biblical interpretations didn't include John 19:27. Furthermore, you've given us no reason to agree with the list you posted. And other Catholics disagree with the list (e.g., here and here).
You write:
"If no, by what authority am I bound to take you seriously?"
Why should we think the issue is authority rather than truth? If there's sufficient evidence that something is true, we ought to accept it as true, regardless of whether an authority can be cited. What's your authority for accepting the authority claims of Roman Catholicism? If you're going to appeal to historical evidence, and call it "authority", for example, then Protestants can do the same. What argument can you provide for Catholicism that wouldn't allow Protestants to take the same sort of approach in arguing for their conclusions?
You write:
"Once again, when you come up with the scripture question, you have got to establish first and foremost that you know what the canon is and how you got to know that."
I've already done that. Where's your argument for your rule of faith?
You go on to say:
"Without the ability to show precisely how you came to regard the scriptures in their exact number and contents as the Word of God, I do not think you have the right to the Scriptures to begin with."
When have you given us a "precise" demonstration of your rule of faith? Yet, you keep making assertions about it. You haven't even told us specifically what your rule of faith contains, much less "precisely" how you justify each part of it. Catholics don't even agree among themselves about what is and isn't Tradition, for example. At least Evangelicals have more agreement about the contents of their rule of faith. You don't even agree with your fellow Catholics about what your rule of faith contains, much less have you given us your own "precise" argument for each portion of your rule.
@ Joh Bugay quoting D.A. Carson...so you rather believe and lean of the guys your age (I mean 20th century) as authoritative than the Apostolic Church and Patristic Fathers? Then go ahead.
Blagahon was right, you guys are spining the plain written text of the Fathers...good example of Jason's assertion that Augustine is not teaching the primacy from the SEAT of PETER is beyond anybody , so no need to elaborate...what planet are you on anyways?
To you I return the favor, "Your "interpretation" is yet another pure fiction that protestants like yourself has forced its flocks to follow in the service of its own deluded quest for own version of authority."
Jae wrote:
"Blagahon was right, you guys are spining the plain written text of the Fathers...good example of Jason's assertion that Augustine is not teaching the primacy from the SEAT of PETER is beyond anybody , so no need to elaborate...what planet are you on anyways?"
You're ignoring what I said about John 19:27 (and many other subjects), and you're misrepresenting what I said about Augustine. For reasons I've explained, and which you keep ignoring, a phrase like "the primacy from the SEAT of PETER" can be defined in more than one way and has to be judged by its surrounding context. I've given some examples of how concepts of Petrine and Roman primacy can be defined in a non-Roman-Catholic manner (Origen, Cyprian, Eastern Orthodoxy), and I've explained why Augustine's context suggests that he didn't believe in a papacy. I've also cited Roman Catholic scholars making these and other relevant points that undermine your conclusions. You keep ignoring what I've said, ignoring large portions of the historical evidence, and ignoring your own denomination's scholarship.
You've done much the same with Irenaeus and now with John 19:27 and Marian doctrine. Your behavior doesn't reflect well on your honesty.
By the way, I wrote a post responding to Dozie and Jae on John 19:27 and some other issues yesterday, but it hasn't appeared yet. Anybody who's interested should try scrolling the screen up later on, to see if the post has appeared at that point. But Jae isn't even interacting with what I said earlier, in posts that have already appeared.
"So, the actual threat is that Mary, called Blessed, is comparable to Baal?"
Insofar as if by "Mary" we refer to a made-up goddess who is supposed to be a vice-regent in heaven ("justice" being the jurisdiction of Jesus and "mercy" being channeled through Mary), then yes.
For the Mary of the Scriptures and the imaginary Mary of Romish legends are simply two different persons. The latter is nothing but a grotesque caricature of the former.
That Queen of Heaven whom RCs bow down and slave for (literal meaning of proskuneo and dulia) is MINO, "Mary In Name Only."
Jae: "To you I return the favor, "Your "interpretation" is yet another pure fiction that protestants like yourself has forced its flocks to follow in the service of its own deluded quest for own version of authority."
So you're saying that Catholics has its own version of Authority, namely, the Infallible Magisterium who is also the Infallible Authoritative Interpreter of Scripture.
Protestants yawn at this, saying that Catholics have just pushed it back a step. Some Catholics don't understand this and wonder what that means. These Catholics don't understand why Protestants pooh-pooh their precious dogma of an Infallible Magisterium and dismiss it so readily and easily.
Well, here's an example: 'We've had enough': Portland Catholic women to skip Sunday morning Mass over treatment of women.
Excerpts: "In August, Jennifer Sleeman, 81, urged Catholic women to boycott this Sunday's Mass in protest of their treatment by the church. Half a world a way, a handful of Portland women responded.
Sleeman -- who is from Ireland and the mother of a monk -- said at the time that her call was inspired by a Vatican statement in July that seemed to equate the ordination of women with pedophilia. "One Spirit -- One Call" will unfold at 9:30 a.m. Sunday in the South Park Blocks in downtown Portland.
Oregon Archbishop John G. Vlazny says Catholic Church won't change position on women's ordination
"This is not a boycott of the Eucharist," Granger says. "It's an opportunity for women to tell their stories, for our voices to be heard."
Organizers wrote to the archbishop of Portland, the Most Rev. John G. Vlazny, and told him of their plans. He says he is resigned that "One Spirit -- One Call" would go on.
Organizers of "One Spirit -- One Call" say women's ordination is only one concern on a longer list. Women, they say, do not help determine policy within the Catholic Church and are not allowed to serve as deacons, even though they may be as educated and as experienced as many priests. Women fill a number of secondary roles in parishes, they say, completing many pastoral duties but they are not allowed to preach publicly. The fact that the Vatican is investigating communities of nuns and sisters in the United States is another sore point. Church leaders say the goal of the investigation is to assess how religious orders are fulfilling their stated missions. But critics suspect the point is to determine whether women are following church teachings.
Organizers believe this is the right time to encourage public dialogue, to reassert the spirit of Vatican II, a 1960s council that proposed many changes in the church. Monsignor Charles Lienert, pastor of St. Andrew's and a supporter of "One Spirit -- One Call," says "at least 50 years of grass root activity" led to the "wonderful renovations" of the second Vatican council.
"Changes in the church have always taken a long time and a lot of voices," he says. "I've been a priest for 40-some years," he said, "and it's apparent to me the pain that women in the church feel many times -- being excluded from different things, not being able to have a real voice in what the church teaches, not being able to participate in all the activities of the church. There is a real reason for their pain.""
----------
Catholics have the Magisterium, the Infallible Interpreter. Big deal. Different interpretations of Scripture are held in the Catholic Church as seen in the example above. Different interpretations of Magisterial dogma exist within Catholic clergy.
Catholic objections to Sola Scriptura and their pointing out that a Magisterium is better... just don't ring true.
Here is a sample of infallibly interpreted bible verses:
Fascinating. Only seven! What has the Magisterium been doing for 2000 years?
And this is great, too: “One must hold at least to these meanings as taught by the Church. Additional, non-contradictory meanings are not precluded.”
Does that mean that individual Catholics, relying on their own “individual” interpretations can come up with additional, “non-contradictory” meanings? If that’s true, what is the purpose of the Magisterium, at all?
And where is Matthew 16:18 on this list? Does that mean that the Magisterium, in communion with the pope of Rome, has not infallibly interpreted this verse to mean the “pope of Rome” is the “vicar of Christ”? Who, then, are they in communion with?
“Has God not made foolish the wisdom of this world?”
Peace.
It's merely "In Jesus, Mary and Joseph," who are the "Holy Family" and I assure you, when I had been signing that way it was truly to be read "in the spirit of the Holy Family" - who should be examples to all of us.
Scott,
The reason that is offensive – while you may not intend it to be so – is that it detracts from the honor due Christ alone. It is in Christ’s spirit – not that of any human – that we “live and breathe and have our being.”
“We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.” (Colossians 1:28). Since “all wisdom” is “in Christ”, to add any other personages is looked on as blasphemy.
It is a bit saddening to see non-Catholic react so violently to such statements which should be common to us all,
It shouldn’t be, really. The Catholic tendency to elevate all manner of humans to the level of Christ (i.e. Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Co-Mediatrix, etc.) and now Joseph, too, is contrary to the content and spirit of the Apostles. We are not called to participate in the spirit of the “holy family” but in the Spirit of Christ.
”My love to all of you in Christ Jesus. Amen.” (1 Cor. 16:24). Not in JMJ.
“Peace to all of you who are in Christ.” (1 Peter 5:14)
Peace.
And where is Matthew 16:18 on this list?
There are actually *published* Roman apologists who deny that the meaning of Matthew 16:18 has been formerly defined.
correction: meant to say "formally" not formerly. My bad.
First off, to dtking:
Who is really impressed by the fact that you can present dissenting opinions *published* by professing "Catholics?"
Secondly, since it is implied that if we do not look at "all 6000 words" of Mr. Engwer (a somewhat inflated number) in his "three part series" on the papacy; that we have not considered the evidence (at least he has) presented against us; I have taken the time to respond to this three part series. I sincerely doubt any of you will take the time to go through my responses, but it cannot be said that Engwer's "three part series" has not been thoroughly looked and and been found to be sorrily lacking.
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/09/papacy-index.html
Now I know that some don't like to "follow rabbit trails" - but keep in mind, this "trail" started over on the CathApol Blog, and was not brought here by a CathApol author/contributor.
The fact remains, Protestants, such as many here, love to embrace St. Augustine, but they do so, IMHO, without understanding what he really taught, believed and celebrated as he celebrated the Mass of the Catholic Church as instituted by Jesus Christ. That is the gist of what cathmom5 said and is what Swan brought the "trail" over here over.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
PS- Constantine, I'm not going to let "In JMJ" be a stumbling block, let it go, I have. I would be happy to discuss it further with you, but not on this blog.
"To go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant."
Bl. John Cardinal Newman
First off, to dtking:
Who is really impressed by the fact that you can present dissenting opinions *published* by professing "Catholics?"
Surely not someone such as yourself who has lived a long time in the never-never land of Roman apologetics. But thanks for the encouragement to do so...
Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: …the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.
Please let the record stand that Mr. Windsor, acting as a magisterium of one, regards someone like Mr. Madrid as holding a dissenting opinion regarding Matthew 16.
DT KING.
Why do you qualify Madrid's being pubslished by using the '*'?
Hmm, we are told that Roman Catholic dogma creates the unity that Christ prayed for in John 17. But here we have two leading "RomApols" disagreeing over the very meaning of one of those unifying statements. Hmm...
Why do you qualify Madrid's being pubslished by using the '*'?
I suggest you re-read carefully, and try to comprehend who said what.
John,
It is more like DT King's latest trail simply proves that ya'll stretch (conflate) anything into something that it isn't in order to 'win' an argument.
Honestly. This thread is pretty much 'Exhibit A' of spirit that dominates the Reformed blogosphere, which is unfortunate because the Reformed tradition which frankly deserves better.
DT King.
Well, I must be kind of slow because I don't get it.
Are you suggesting that Madrid is not published? Or only sort of published?
Yes Sean, the Reformed tradition deserves to have achieved it's goals at the Reformation, which was to have completely reformed the church at Rome in the 16th century. Too bad that Papal persecution and Jesuitical zeal for dishonesty hindered their plans. They deserved better.
Well, I must be kind of slow because I don't get it.
Are you suggesting that Madrid is not published? Or only sort of published?
OK, I'll try to make this simple for you since you do not seem to have basic reading skills. These words -- "First off, to dtking:
Who is really impressed by the fact that you can present dissenting opinions *published* by professing "Catholics?" -- are not mine. They are Mr. Windsor's who was asking a question - I said nothing of the sort.
You see, I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself, and even then you proved unable to do it. You see, you are so blind in your bias against us that you respond when you don't even understand who said what.
John,
What I meant was that Reformed people deserve a higher level of discourse. This thread started with others being called 'clueless.' We also saw a guy being discredited because his blog asks for donations (so does your buddy James White by the way). We also saw people being told that their reading comprehension sucks because they don't understand an argument immediately. And we ended with very lame attempt to paint disagreement where none exists.
All people deserve better, not just Reformed people.
DT King.
I missed that CathApol had originally put it that way.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
Glad to help. I will keep pointing you in the right direction if only you will make the effort to be more careful in how you read.
DT King,
By the way, I still haven't had some of my comments posted and I have noticed that other comments have appeared after a delay, so it has been a little confusing for me to follow everything. Plus I was reading the comments previously on by blackberry which isn’t the best way.
But, I got to say that the spirit exhibited by you in the blog world is incredibly off putting and frankly rude.
Well Sean, we have two conflicting reports as to whether or not the meaning of Matthew 16:18 has been infallibly defined. How can we know infallibly if it has not been infallibly defined? Beyond that, if the infallible magisterium has only infallibly defined the meaning of only seven verses, then who mops up he Roman Catholic confusion over the meaning of the other 137,243 verses in the Bible?? What a recipe for confusion!!
Sean: But, I got to say that the spirit exhibited by you in the blog world is incredibly off putting and frankly rude.
It should be none of your concern to tell an ordained minister of the Gospel how to go about doing his business. If you find him "off putting and frankly rude," well, there can be no other explanation than that you need such handling.
John,
Ask CathApol and Patrick Madrid if they believe that Peter was given the keys to the heavenly kingdom and if Peter's successors follow in his ministry.
This thread on Called to Communion is timely for this particular rabbit hole.
But, I got to say that the spirit exhibited by you in the blog world is incredibly off putting and frankly rude.
Yes, I understand that Romanists object when people take the opportunity to point out both the ignorance and stupidity expressed by you folks. But I could care less what you regard as rude.
Given your history, I don't think I would be throwing rocks in your glass house. You see, I don't go to Romanist blogs and behave like a perfect idiot. The fact is that you object to all our arguments and behave the way you do - demonstrates just how insecure you are with respect to your conversion to Rome.
But when you find someone that you can't "buffalo" with the typical Romanist nonsense, but who can actually respond meaningfully, then they are regarded as rude. I understand the response. Your tactic is #3 on my list o the "Ten Worst But Most Common Techniques of the Roman Apologist"...
3. Accusation of hate technique - Insist vehemently that your opponent is full of hate. It is always advisable to paint your opponent as hateful.
As I have told you repeatedly, you need to restrain yourself, and actually engage in some serious study of the issues that divide us instead of pontificating on matters you do not understand.
As for the latest example, consider the presupposition employed by yourself as an expression of rudeness - you couldn't even understand who said what before you exercised the knee-jerked reaction and insinuated something I never said, yet no apology from you, only an acknowledgment that you erred. That is your common modus operandi.
P.S. Don't blame your knee-jerk reaction on your blackberry. It wasn't your blackberry that erred.
The fact remains, Protestants, such as many here, love to embrace St. Augustine, but they do so, IMHO, without understanding what he really taught, believed and celebrated as he celebrated the Mass of the Catholic Church as instituted by Jesus Christ. That is the gist of what cathmom5 said and is what Swan brought the "trail" over here over.
The fact remains, Protestants, such as many here, love to embrace St. Augustine, but they do so, IMHO, without understanding what he really taught, believed and celebrated as he celebrated the Mass of the Catholic Church as instituted by Jesus Christ. That is the gist of what cathmom5 said and is what Swan brought the "trail" over here over.
So, it's all about the mass as being an extra-biblical revelation, I thought so. I guess Windsor & co. hold the quote from Augustine is stating God revealed himself outside of scripture in "sacred rites, the festal days, and everything which concerned with the homage due to God." This is all Augustine's code language for the mass.
For the sake of argument, I'll grant hypothetically that Augustine has the Lord's Supper in view. It's true that "the rites, priesthood, tabernacle or temple, altars, sacrifices, ceremonies, and whatever else belongs to that service which is due to God" testify to Jesus Christ, before, now and later. But these were revealed in Scripture, and it's Scripture which tells us what they ultimately mean. They don't have their meaning apart from the Bible as an extra-biblical source of revelation, they are given their meaning by Scripture. The Lord's Supper means what it does before, now, and later because of Scripture, not independent of Scripture. These very concepts themselves were given by revelation, recorded by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, and had their meaning explained by Scripture.
Blogahon said...
Your last comment was dumped.
See:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/04/leaving-comment-on-this-blog-helpful.html
Furthermore:
Augustine (354-430): Well, it’s easy enough for me, I think, to speak about it to Christians; God is to be worshiped in the way he said he was to be worshiped. I mean, if Christians ask me how God said he was to be worshiped, I don’t put out my own words, I just read out the book which they undoubtedly submit to in virtue of their faith; they are not permitted, after all, to have doubts about the divine scriptures. God also wished to have written down how he wished to be worshiped; what he wished to be written down, he wished to be read out, and he gave such a peak and pitch of authority to this writing that he placed all authors of any other books under its feet.
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 374.10 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 398.
In the City of God, Augustine elsewhere states:
[The city of God] believes also the Holy Scriptures, old and new, which we call canonical, and which are the source of the faith by which the just lives and by which we walk without doubting whilst we are absent from the Lord. So long as this faith remains inviolate and firm, we may without blame entertain doubts regarding some things which we have neither perceived by sense nor by reason, and which have not been revealed to us by the canonical Scriptures, nor come to our knowledge through witnesses whom it is absurd to disbelieve [book xix, chapterv 18].
>> sw: First off, to dtking:
>> Who is really impressed by
>> the fact that you can present
>> dissenting opinions
>> *published* by professing
>> "Catholics?"
>
> dk: Surely not someone such as
> yourself who has lived a long
> time in the never-never land of
> Roman apologetics.
sw: The "Romans" are long gone, my friend. I am, to use your analogy, in the "never-never land of Catholic apologetics."
> dk: But thanks for the
> encouragement to do so...
Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: …the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.
sw: I fail to see how Patrick's explanation of how supporting citations FOR a dogmatic definition are not themselves part of the dogmatic definition itself. In fact, I don't see how this quote from Patrick applies to the discussion here in the least.
> dk: Please let the record stand
> that Mr. Windsor, acting as a
> magisterium of one, regards
> someone like Mr. Madrid as
> holding a dissenting opinion
> regarding Matthew 16.
sw: I see no dissenting opinion of Matthew 16 in what you have quoted from Madrid. All he has said is that Matthew 16 and John 21 are used to support the dogma, but that these "supports" are not part of the dogma itself.
sw: I know of no dissenting opinions from Patrick Madrid.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
sw: I know of no dissenting opinions from Patrick Madrid.
Mr. Windsor, I do not know how Mr. Madrid could have been clearer. But I am not surprised, because there is no official statement of the Roman magisterium, or of a Roman apologist, that is not subject to the death of a thousand qualifications. In the never-never land of the Romanist, there is never any contradiction, never any opposing views, that divide the pretended unity for which they applaud themselves.
BTW, the Romanist sect today is alive and well. I deny it to be "catholic" given its divergence from the rest of catholicism in terms of its peculiar dogmas. And nothing is more an affront to the crown prerogatives of the Lord Jesus Christ than the attempt to usurp the crown of his headship over the church and place it on the head of a man.
Augustine (354-430) speaking of Christ said: He is the one and only pontiff, the one and only priest, who was prefigured in God's priests of old. John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Newly Discovered Sermons, Sermon 198A.49 (New York: New City Press, 1997), p. 218.
Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): testified of the Lord Jesus Christ that He is “the truly one and only head” of the Church, who knows no vicar but the presence of his own Spirit in his Church.
Greek text: τῆς μιᾶς καὶ μόνης ἀληθῶς κεφαλῆς. De Judicio Dei, §3, PG 31:660.
CathApol wrote:
"I sincerely doubt any of you will take the time to go through my responses, but it cannot be said that Engwer's 'three part series' has not been thoroughly looked and and been found to be sorrily lacking."
You responded to the wrong series. The series I cited, which Matthew Schultz later referenced in your quotation of him, was the one about Augustine. That series is only partly about the papacy. You've replied to a different series.
I sincerely doubt any of you will take the time to go through my responses
I only visit your websites occasionally. I don't have anything personally against you Scott. If it means anything, when I do visit your sites I read what's there. I appreciate your zealousness to defend your beliefs. I think you're very wrong, and I hope that one day you abandon Romanism.
JB: How can we know infallibly if it has not been infallibly defined?
We can't.
Not to worry; God left "knowing infallibility" to Himself alone:
Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;
Mat 11:26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
Mat 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Those that do know understand and know of what He speaks, here:
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?"
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?
Joh 3:11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
If one cares to notice, Jesus never did answer the question asked at John's Gospel, chapter 3, verse 12!
Hmmmmmmm?
Why?
See Matthew 11:27!
:)
Swan,
Re: Dumped comments.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So, your buddies can get as personal as they want but if somebody simply tells them that they are being rude they get canned. What a deal.
There was nothing mean about my comment. If David King wants a forum where he can be as rude as possible with no consequences than he has found it.
Well, that's all folks. I am done.
I hereby relinquish the conch for good on 'Beggar's All'
I for one am glad to see you go.
> JE: You responded to the wrong
> series. The series I cited, which
> Matthew Schultz later referenced
> in your quotation of him, was the
> one about Augustine. That series
> is only partly about the papacy.
> You've replied to a different
> series.
sw: Well alrighty then! Since the subject we were discussing was the papacy, I focused on that "three part series," and frankly, didn't see the one on Augustine until now. Still what I did respond to I stand by. The "other series" appears to be a bit smaller than the one I initially responded to, so it should not take as long to generate a response this time.
Sean writes:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
This is a good example of the disdainful posture you often take. It won't be missed.
And instead of respecting the rules here, you feel obligated to fire a parting shot. It confirms the immaturity we've seen you engage in elsewhere, such as over at Triablogue.
So, your buddies can get as personal as they want
You've used some rather "personal" language and descriptions of this blog and its participants yourself.
but if somebody simply tells them that they are being rude they get canned. What a deal.
Your behavior has been asinine throughout this thread ever since you commented on material Jason Engwer posted without having given evidence of carefully read it.
There was nothing mean about my comment. If David King wants a forum where he can be as rude as possible with no consequences than he has found it.
He wasn't as "rude as possible." You have a habit of exaggerating perceived faults of your opponents while minimizing your own errors. It doesn't bring your position any credibility.
The tough treatment you've received has come because you've consistently acted irresponsibly with the material and arguments you've been given. If you don't want to get called out for not comprehending documents or articles, try to do a better job understanding them before issuing rebuttals.
I hereby relinquish the conch for good on 'Beggar's All'
Your sophistry will not be missed.
Blogahon said: I hereby relinquish the conch for good on 'Beggar's All
This is the best decision you could possibly make, and one of the few for which I'd offer you a standing ovation, were it not for the fact that I don't believe it. I expect that you'll continue here under a new nick or anonymously, because I don't think you can help yourself. :)
I hereby relinquish the conch for good on 'Beggar's All'
Before you venture off into the cyber-sunset, consider the following.
You should think about it this way: you were allowed to post a majority of comments here that weren't deleted. You were allowed to defend your beliefs almost entirely unedited. I even posted those comments that you made that were sifted over to blogger spam (once I cracked that mystery). If you can't abide by the very simple rules I have, too bad.
Leave if you want. I can't speak for my co-bloggers, but I typically don't put up blog posts in order to get massive hits or long drawn out dialogs. The most enjoyment from blog posts I get is putting Romanist sifted Luther quotes back in context, and these typically draw little interest or meaningful comments (for instance, posts like these) from Romanists.
I've replied to Scott Windsor's blog articles on the papacy. See here.
I've replied to Scott Windsor's blog articles on the papacy. See here.
I just read it. Scott Windsor's arguments got whupped.
TUAD said, "Different interpretations of Scripture are held in the Catholic Church as seen in the example above."
This is an example of "solid" refutation of the likes of James White and contributors of Beggars all about the Teaching Office (Magisterium)....very, very LAME!
Hey guys, I told you there are catholic priests, catholic groups and scholars who happened to disagree with the Magisterium, so therefore (mee thinks) that makes it invalid and we could pooh-pooh on it too.
As if there are no reformed guys who don't disagree with the reformed theology at all which THEREFORE (mee thinks again) makes the reformed theology invalid and a pooh-pooh TOO.
SO WHAT IF THERE are people who are not faithful and who disagree with their faith traditions? DOES IT make the their trditional teaching invalid and false?
IF A CATHOLIC DISAGREE WITH CATHOLIC CHURCH'S TEACHING AND DOCTRINES SAY THAT JESUS IS BOTH HUMAN AND GOD...DOES IT MAKE THE MAGISTERIUM A POOH-POOH?
These is how you and rest of the contributors of Beggars all sounded like!
IF A CATHOLIC DISAGREE WITH CATHOLIC CHURCH'S TEACHING AND DOCTRINES SAY THAT JESUS IS BOTH HUMAN AND GOD...DOES IT MAKE THE MAGISTERIUM A POOH-POOH?
These is how you and rest of the contributors of Beggars all sounded like!
If a Reformed churchman disagrees with the Bible that teaches that Jesus is both God and man, does that make the Bible pooh-pooh?
This is what you and the rest of your co-religionists sound like.
Hence an intelligent disputant would recognize that any argument which, when applied in reverse, undermines his own argument, cannot be a sound argument. But Romanist objections are all about double standards.
The most enjoyment from blog posts I get is putting Romanist sifted Luther quotes back in context, and these typically draw little interest or meaningful comments (for instance, posts like these) from Romanists.
One wonders why you didn't simply raise your objection on the original Called to Communion discussion. There was a good discussion going with 200+ comments that were thoughtful and engaging.
Had you offered your comment there it would have been noticed and then you would not have taken such joy getting little notice from it.
I don't think that any of the contributors of the website are prone to check what Beggar's All has to say about this or that; myself notwithstanding but I am done.
I was not going to leave a comment and I will not be coming back to check this thread any further but in the future if you want to engage what is said on Called to Communion - Called to Communion would be a good place for it.
Here is a comment we got the other day:
This board has seen far fewer impressive protestants join the discussion in recent months. I hope that changes...Protestants need to actually come and try and demonstrate that by interacting with the arguments people here are making....It is more important to know God's truth than to win an argument. If people believe that then why not come and deal with these issues...I know I would learn a lot more and be more entertained if there are some good arguments being presented on the other side. The arguments presented here are not only strong but they are beautiful.
Jae,
Did you read and understand this part of my comment above:
"So you're saying that Catholics has its own version of Authority, namely, the Infallible Magisterium who is also the Infallible Authoritative Interpreter of Scripture.
Protestants yawn at this, saying that Catholics have just pushed it back a step. Some Catholics don't understand this and wonder what that means."
Jae, your response to me shows that you haven't grasped this.
An aside, thanks Pastor King for your immediate response above to Jae.
"If a Reformed churchman disagrees with the Bible that teaches that Jesus is both God and man, does that make the Bible pooh-pooh?"
First of all the "pooh-pooh" comment didn't originate from me, ok?
Secondly, that is exactly my point when you said to apply the same logic in reverse....so I thank you.
This is what I'm trying to say, "So you're saying that Protestants has its own version of Authority, namely, the Sola Scriptura who is also the Infallible Authoritative Interpreter of Scripture. (I wonder if the Bible could only decide or it's just you).
Catholics yawn at this, saying that Protestants have just pushed it back a step. Some Protestants don't understand this and wonder what that means."
This is how you sounded to us too!
One wonders why you didn't simply raise your objection on the original Called to Communion discussion. There was a good discussion going with 200+ comments that were thoughtful and engaging.
Well, even though you won't be reading this, I'll respond anyway.
First, when I cover Luther propaganda (like that put forth in the link from CTC I cited previously), I like to keep a searchable record of it, so it's posted on my blog. Second, since responses like that typically take time, I'm not going waste my time putting together a lengthy response only to have it deleted on another blog (this has happened). Third, a 200 comment blog post is simply chaotic. Fourth, since others typically visit here looking for Luther material, it's best to post it here, especially for future readers.
Had you offered your comment there it would have been noticed and then you would not have taken such joy getting little notice from it.
I don't care if the CTC people see it or not. the blog post I used as an example was simply that: an example of the type of blog posts I enjoy putting together, and how silent Romanists get when they're confronted with contexts.
I don't think that any of the contributors of the website are prone to check what Beggar's All has to say about this or that; myself notwithstanding but I am done.
That's quite all right. I consider any formerly Reformed people who've converted to Rome apostate. I rather they wouldn't visit this blog.
I was not going to leave a comment and I will not be coming back to check this thread any further but in the future if you want to engage what is said on Called to Communion - Called to Communion would be a good place for it.
We all knew you would leave another comment. You aren't the first Romanist who has vowed to never visit here or leave a comment to return and leave a comment. I am quite used to such behavior.
One last thing: ask yourself why you're reading this comment when you vowed not to return. This is one of the main reasons I don't trust cyber-Romanist apologists. They often do not keep their word.
James said: One last thing: ask yourself why you're reading this comment when you vowed not to return. This is one of the main reasons I don't trust cyber-Romanist apologists. They often do not keep their word.
I certainly called this one. He can't help himself. But given his little rhetorical rant commensurate with his departure, about never coming back, he needs to be reminded, and so I'm telling him (Because I know he'll read it), that no one invited him to be here in the first place. It's not like someone welcomed his rude self to post here. Now, no doubt, the Romanist regards this again as rude, while he gives no thought to his having obtruded on us his negative, amateurish comments here as someone who is not prepared to defend his new found communion in any kind of substantial or meaningful way. His "research" in these matters extends no further than, and suffers from the limits of, what little he can manage to glean from web sites, particularly Roman apologetic web sites, in his attempt to address issues of which he clearly has little or no comprehension, due in no small measure (as demonstrated repeatedly) on poor reading skills. It amazes me how all these new converts to Rome become experts overnight on the theological issues to divide us, and then place themselves, as a magisterium of one, in the seat of correction. The impertinence of such presumption is staggering to the imagination, to express it as gingerly as I know how.
"if you want to engage what is said on Called to Communion - Called to Communion would be a good place for it"
Things tend to get buried in the comment boxes at CTC and the comment moderation is inconsistent. That's enough of a reason to take it elsewhere.
This is the Google age - people find critiques of their work remarkably quickly.
-TurretinFan
ROFL "I hereby relinquish the conch for good on 'Beggar's All'" Then less than 24 hours later, he's back!
dtking called it!
More classic absurdity:
We are told that Augustine's explicit affirmation of basic tenants of the papacy (succession from Peter, communion with the same and appeals for authority to the same) mean nothing when discussing whether or not Augustine believed in the papacy??? What planet are we on?
The answer, of course is this:
The planet where believing in the papal infallibility requires, you know, like actually believing that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
The planet where believing that papal jurisdiction is so absolute that it is a thing absolutely necessary for salvation that every creature be subject to the Roman pontiff.
Not a planet where believing in something far short of those doctrines magically becomes belief in those doctrines through the hermeneutical principle of "well, he never explicitly rejected it!"
-TurretinFan
the hermeneutical principle of "well, he never explicitly rejected it!"
I think they've got us on this one T-Fan. Even if he did explicitly reject it, it would work as in the case of Cyprian or Firmilian who did explicitly reject the concept. There is yet another hermeneutical excuse, er. principle in place for that eventuality.
Post a Comment