Over on Dr. Gene Veith's blog I was politely challenged on my assumptions about the Assumption. Since I'm not a professional Roman Catholic apologist, I'm not able to interpret Romanism infallibly. Perhaps though, some of you can. Here's an edited version of how it went down. If you know the answer to this riddle, please help me out:
Shelly:
Catholics do believe Mary could and did die, then she was taken up bodily into Heaven. (“…she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.”
Swan:
As I’ve understood Romnism, it isn’t determined one way or the other that Mary died. A Roman Catholic is free to believe either. This is some of what Roman Catholics are required to believe about Mary’s assumption:
“…We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith…It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” [decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII]
It seems to me that early church history didn’t know what to do about the death of Mary. For instance, the words of Epiphanius contradict the idea of a long held belief in the Assumption. Epiphanius notes another “tradition” that no one knows what happened to Mary. His is the earliest non-heretical voice that comments on the subject of Mary’s bodily assumption, around 377:
“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent (on the end of Mary) … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”
Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 85 states:
“Actually the good Epiphanius made a superfluous display of hypotheses. If in his time no tradition existed about the end of Mary’s life, that is simply due to the fact that her death happened in a time when the practice of venerating the memory of martyrs or of persons eminent in the Church had not yet arisen, and it passed unobserved.” (page 85)
On first glance, I thought Miegge’s point was silly. People are so prone to worship the creation rather than the creator- could there possibly have been a time when Christians did not violate the first two commandments? Miegge also notes that “The growth of the cult of Mary was not rapid, not as rapid, at least, as appeared possible, in view of the very great possibilities of development in the title theotokos.” (p.83)
But yet, as I read through the earliest speculations about Mary’s end- including the apocryphal literature, I grant he may have point. On the other hand, if pressed- I would be forced to conclude there is no “one” tradition of the assumption- there doesn’t appear to be any one unified theme or tradition. The only certain thing that tradition appears to point to in this matter, is that no one knows what happened to Mary.
Second, Mary’s role in the New Testament diminishes- what I mean is this- The gospel accounts contain material about Mary- Acts and the rest of the New Testament do not record her “doings” in the early church. In other words, in the Bible she fades from the scene, as well as in history. God is in providential control of both, and I find their unity in this matter to be something to consider.
Shelly:
Actually, it is an obligation for Catholics to believe that Mary died, then was assumed into Heaven. A Catholic blogger (source below) nicely puts it that “… it is at least a sententia certa (a certain teaching) that our Lady died before being raised and assumed into heaven. This is the clear and explicit tradition of the West and is maintained in a slightly less-clear (and more metaphorical) manner also in the East.”
“Sententia certa” means that the particular teaching being declared is a high-level-of-certitude teaching upon which the Catholic is obliged to accept and believe.
This certitude that Mary in fact died and was believed by the Roman Catholic Church to have died before her bodily assumption is nicely addressed by Pope Pius XII when he states in section 17 of Munificantissimu Deus (MD–see link in my original posting above) in quoting an historical source that
“…Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”
The requirements of Catholics to be obliged to believe the content stated within MD, including that Mary died (“…the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death…” before being taken up into Heaven is stated in various places by Pius XII within MD. Source (Catholic blogger):
Swan:
Well, we’ll have to let a professional Roman Catholic apologist solve this riddle. I’ve read quite a number of sources (Protestant and Roman Catholic) saying that it is not essential for a Roman Catholic to believe Mary died. Here are a few sources:
James White, Mary Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998) p. 52.
Patrick Madrid, Where is That in the Bible? (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2001), pp. 71-72.
Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 272-273.
Stanley Stuber, Primer on Roman Catholicism for Protestants (New York: Association Press, 1953), p. 100.
The New Catholic Answer Bible (insert F2) “If indeed she was free from sin, then it follows that she would not have to undergo the decay of death, which was the penalty for sin.”
I could multiply these sources as well. These were only a few. Whatever the answer, this very issue demonstrates a fatal flaw in Romanism: even their alleged infallible dogmatic pronouncements are open to interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
Hello Mr. Swan, Of course, infallible dogmatic pronouncements are subject to interpretation. Why wouldn't they be? What a silly thing to say.
After all, St. Paul state:
"If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known." 1 Cor. 13:9-12.
You really didn't need an professional apologist, Catholic or otherwise, to tell you that.
Undergirding your article is something else. What you perhaps are struggling with is that the Church teaches that although there are no additions to the Deposit of Faith as such was closed with the end of the apostolic age, we still are growing in understanding of that Deposit of Faith as each of us apply the Word of God to our lives. Extra-biblical growth in understanding of the Word of God is evidenced in the growth and development of our understanding of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is still active as a teaching and a revealing authority in the Church and reveals Himself to "faithful people" in all ages.
What you really need to ask is what was Pope Pius XII's purpose in promulgating the dogma of the Assumption? For that matter, why did the Catholic Church even feel that the Assumption was even important enough to define it at all?
Once you consider and take the time to study those questions, you will find that the issue of whether Mary actually died or not before being assumed is actually irrelevant to the understanding of the dogma.
That said, great questions!
God bless!
Hi Paul!
Thanks for stopping by. So... work slowly with me here.
Does...Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus... teach... that Mary died? If so, should I toss out my books by Mr. Keating and Mr. Madrid as being unreliable?
Help out a poor befuddled Protestant here.
"Of course, infallible dogmatic pronouncements are subject to interpretation."
So the mind that is not up to the task of interpreting Scripture is capable of interpreting Magesterial pronouncements?
Hi Mr. Swan,
I will try to unfuddle you.
After reading Pope Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus, do you think the validity of the dogma of Mary's Assumption is dependent on whether Mary was assumed alive or dead? There may be obiter dicta that reveals what the Pope's opinion on the subject is, but the definition itself is silent on the matter. One should not read into the infallible definition something that is not there. In short, the Pope did not infallibly define whether Mary died before being assumed. Once one makes an investigation why the definition is important theologically, one will see why the issue of whether Mary died before being assumed is not important to the definition. Since it was not important to the definition, a Catholic is free in good conscience to believe that she died and then was assumed into heaven or that she was still alive when she was assumed. If Mr. Madrid or Mr. Keating feel she did not die before being assumed, they are free to do so. Personally, I follow the Latin tradition (small t) and it is my opinion that she did. There are cogent arguments that could be made for either viewpoint, but since the Pope determined that the issue is not critical to the definition of the dogma, you should not lose sleep over whether Mary died.
ea, my mind is quite capable of interpreting Scripture and magisterial pronouncements. However, my interpretations are subject to what the Church holds. My interpretations do not bind the Church; rather the Church's interpretations bind mine.
Now if I have misinterpreted the import of your query, please add definitional clarity so I can attempt to re-interpret it and offer a more precise answer for you!
God bless!
infallible dogmatic pronouncements are subject to interpretation. Why wouldn't they be? What a silly thing to say.
B/c scads of Romanists on this very blog alone have played the "that's just your interpretation of the Bible!" or "you don't have any authority to interpret the Bible yourself!" card I don't know how many times.
Paul, that's a very disappointing comment.
Hello Rhology,
Me thinks you miss the 'bigger picture'. As Paul correctly states, just as the Bible needs to be interpreted, so too with the "infallible dogmatic pronouncements" that he subscribes to.
With that said two important facts must be kept in mind: first, though the "infallible dogmatic pronouncements" still need to be interpreted, they are theologically much clearer on what they address than the Bible alone. By way of example, modalists, Arians, Socinians, et al. deny that the Bible teaches a doctrine of the Trinity; however, none of the above would say the same about the Nicene Creed, for even they know that it teaches a doctrine of the Trinity.
And second, confessional Prots realize the need for catechisms, creeds and confessions to maintain doctrinal purity; and yet those have read a bit of church history know that those catechisms, creeds and confessions are subject to interpretation, and that disagreements have led to numerous church splits.
Grace and peace,
David
first, though the "infallible dogmatic pronouncements" still need to be interpreted, they are theologically much clearer on what they address than the Bible alone.
I heartily disagree, especially since they are often contradictory between each other.
As James White rightly says, give me Romans 8 any day over the code of Canon Law.
disagreements have led to numerous church splits.
I've pointed out I don't know how many times that the presence of an infallible Magisterium in Rome hasn't prevented the same from occurring for her.
Rhology, sorry, but permit me to give you an idea to try: don't use adjectives. Paul Hoffer's comment is "disappointing". My explanations regarding baptism were "emotional" and "scary." Just make a point without those.
confessional Prots realize the need for catechisms, creeds and confessions to maintain doctrinal purity; and yet those have read a bit of church history know that those catechisms, creeds and confessions are subject to interpretation, and that disagreements have led to numerous church splits.
Those catechisms, creeds and confessions are meant to be very clear and instruments for unity, not division. There where these biblical confessions are honestly prescribed to, there unity can exist.
In terms of Mary's death and so-called "assumption", I think the question is, how can you make such a matter, not discussed in scripture a matter of conscience for your own members and all those who can't hold any specific belief regarding these matters. Is it not immoral to place such burdens on consciences? Especially when nothing really certain can and should be said about these things. The wrath of God is actually threatened over this. I do not believe the Lord would have us dealt with in this manner. There is something very wrong with this assertion over souls.
Those catechisms, creeds and confessions are meant to be very clear and instruments for unity, not division.
1) Isn't it true that many of them were made to cut off those who disagree?
2) Also, including those who hold heretical beliefs just for the sake of unity or for being able to point to unity is hardly commendable, wouldn't you say?
3) Yet EENS remains controversial on the basis of ecclesial history, and that's hardly the only one. The infallible Magisterium hasn't figured out the Canon of Scripture either, nor the Canon of its own pronouncements. How is this helpful?
Is it not immoral to place such burdens on consciences?
That's why what Shelly said is so pernicious. Unless you're for some reason aiming this at James Swan, in which case I'd have to ask you, Brigitte, to show where he did that.
Brigette:
"...In terms of Mary's death and so-called "assumption", I think the question is, how can you make such a matter, not discussed in scripture a matter of conscience for your own members and all those who can't hold any specific belief regarding these matters.
...
Is it not immoral to place such burdens on consciences?"
Amen!
Yes, I agree that it is immoral to place such burdens on the conscience of any, strong or weak, such burdens the Lord does not, Himself, place!
Would you be able to make a compendium of the major points of the Bible applying the proper distinction between such Law and Gospel?
It seems to me once you move from those major points and their distinctions, your motive can be questioned; why?
I believe the most salient question of motive can be best understood from Genesis 3 and the not so little query of the snake!
James, as for your use of the word "Professional", just to venture a guess, just how much does a professional Roman Catholic Apologist expect to get paid in here, in this house, anyway? $10 dollars for a wrong answer, $20 dollars for a right one? :)
natallmc, regarding your question and pick up on previous points, this is what we have our catechims, creeds and confessions for. They try to show everything from scripture and delineate much.
I keep on recommending to everyone, and maybe especially to Rhology, the purchasing and reading of the new Reader's Edition of the Confessional Writings from Concordia Publishing House. It is really something everyone with inclination toward studying the faith would benefit having in his house.
Rhology, the part you quote is so most obviously not leveled at James Swan. How can you even get that from this.
Oh, well, that's why I tried to ask whether it was. Glad to hear it wasn't. Thank you.
Brigitte,
agreed, subscribed.
But, I was wanting to draw out your understanding.
Why?
Because my fellowship, while not Lutheran per say, have been studying Luther and a whole lot of Lutheran Theologians, Forde, Wengren, Baker, Hein, Nestigen, Paulson and on and on and on with reading those books! grrrrr.
We have been studying and teaching the small and large catechism to our own. We have our own school system and graduate some high scholastic numbers, which really doesn't say much seeing the public school system's credentials.
You seem to be a full fledged, knowledgeable Lutheran lady. Are you in an office within the ELCA? or other or a member???
I would hope you would lay out some sort of compendium, ever so brief that it would be that gives a sense of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel as Luther came to understand?
No pressure, though; and it is quite understandable if you do not oblige.
"infallible dogmatic pronouncements" still need to be interpreted"
There are several problems with this: For starters, even within Catholicism there is disagreement over which magesterial statements are covered by infallibility. I have also read that only the dogmatic definition and not necessarily the the logic used to arrive at the definition is protected by the charism of infalllibility. If so, evaluating the premises of a dogmatic pronouncement seems superfluous.
Secondly, one of the main reasons provided by Catholics for the necessity of the Magesterium is the unreliability of private interpretation. The claim that private interpretation is required to understand Magesterial teaching undercuts the rationale for the Magesterium in the first place.
Thirdly, there exists no infallible guide to hermeneutics. The layman can either proceed at his or her peril using their private interpretation and judgement or must rely on some expert's interpretation. This, of course, requires a correct judgement of who qualifies as being an expert. As James has shown that can be an issue when seemingly orthodox catholics disagree.
Fourth, the statement that "my interpretations are subject to what the Church holds" requires first the understanding of what the Church teaches. So the average Catholic is left in the position of having to know what the church teaches in order to know how to interpret what the church teaches. The circular nature of this arrangement is made worse when one considers the near universal lament over the lack of proper catechesis.
The end result of all this is, that the Roman Catholic layperson (those whom I know) make their own decisions about what they believe and what not, anyhow. Most, except for new converts, don't believe in indulgences, etc. etc. The whole threat of the wrath of God, is gone out the window.
And then we realize we have been baked into the same loaf in spite of everything.
natalmllc, I am not in the line of producing compendia, and don't forsee this at this point.
However, for the best and simplest summary, I would go to Luther's Small Catechism with Explanations (Bible Proofs"). You really can't beat this as a summary. Also it has been described as the basic things to learn how to "live and die."
http://web.archive.org/web/20040103065832/http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/explanation.pdf
The distinction between law and gospel is an application in real life, pastoral care and "taught by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience".
Brigitte,
that's what I was after; "your own experience of it, in your own words"?
Do the Catechisms, whether Lutheran or Calvinist, do a person a service when one cannot with their own words express the Faith once delivered to the Saints that comes alive to them reading the catechisms or being taught from them?
This troubles me if you cannot. I have been reading, first, being taught, something during the Roman Catholic catechism teachings when I was attending the Catholic catechism class. Then, after a lull in learning anything religious, the Lord opened my heart and soul to the Scriptures when reading them one day on a sunny morning in July, 1975. Now, in these later years, the last ten years or so, I have been studying both the teachings of Luther and Calvin and others down through the centuries, going as far back as the ECF's, and up to current scholars and their works; and those catechisms, catechisms, catechisms, respectively.
It puzzles me that one cannot express from their own heart and soul "life" in Jesus Christ and the fundamentals of the doctrines of Grace, especially when we are confronted with such a verse as this one:
Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
There is nothing neutral about that verse. It is not just a verse for men. It a verse for all of God's Elect, both male and female, young and old, men and women, boys and girls.
One, such as me, wonders what's up with that, when one cannot give a reasoned response for the Hope that is within them? Without dispute, I suppose, most everyone up to just a short while ago, before the advent of the internet age, received His Faith from hearing someone orally communicate it; and, or, after pointing to Scriptures for reference; and, or, in conjunction with someone's exegetical writings of the men of Faith whose reasoning were written in a book or journal article based solidly in the Scriptures.
One thing, I believe, in the United States these days, it seems, this nation's uneducated are poised to "hear" anew about the Faith once delivered to the Saints, calling and electing them out of this world, seeing very few, a low percentage, in light of the many having gone to school or going through the education processes now, know how to read or write. What is happening to a person after twelve or fourteen years of canned education? Very little, it seems, by any a number of accounts when queried by a question and answer experience after formal schooling is completed?
I was not asking for a Lutheran "official" communication about the proper distinction of Law and Gospel. I was only asking you to express yourself boldly, kind of in line with the sense the Apostle Paul was writing and confidently expressing about those he was bless with teaching the Truth too, such as indicated by this verse:
Rom 15:14 I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another.
There seems to me there is a fundamental breakdown in pedagogy today in the churches and in public schools and private and charter if the ones being taught cannot or are not able to instruct one another after their own education process?
Again, I do not wish to put undo pressure on you, Brigitte, and if it seems that way, please accept my apologies.
With that, I withdraw my request.
Now, may the God of Peace, Himself, fill your spirit, soul and body anew with a fresh breath of His refreshing Presence and knowledge, and wisdom, and an understanding of His Grace!
When you asked me for a "compendium", I had the feeling you were just out to scold me or trick me, natamllc. I see this confirmed in your comment.
If the Ten Commandments, the Creed and the Lord's Prayer don't say much to you, I don't think anything I say about the faith will be acceptable to you.
Brigitte,
"...I see this confirmed in your comment."
I apologize Brigitte for anything I commented or asked you above that in anyway would confirm I am trying to trick you.
Indeed, I am not.
I hope you are sincere in writing that, because I am very sincere in responding to it; I am not trying to trick you, Brigitte!
I am indeed a very fallible human being. I suppose the fault lies squarely with me that you have such a suspicion about me. Again, accept my apology?
And I apologize to Mr. Swan for running this comment thread in this direction realizing even more smartly it is way off topic!
I apologize to you too, Mr. Swan!
And for the record, I believe Mary, the virtuous mother of Jesus Christ, the son of Adam, the Son of God, died and her remains are somewhere around near where she experienced death. Her physical remains was buried as is the way all men's remains should be after suffering death.
From where I sit, anything more than that is delusional.
hi rhology.
you said: The infallible Magisterium hasn't figured out the Canon of Scripture either, nor the Canon of its own pronouncements.
me: may I ask what you mean by this. isn't there a canon of Scripture for the RCC?
thanks.
in Him.
-joe
natamllc, my reply to you seems harsh to me now. I am sorry.
But your question and reply don't make sense to me. You ask me for a "compendium", which is not a word anyone I know uses in this kind of context. It sounds to me like you are asking me to re-invent the wheel of summarizing doctrine, of which we have very excellent summaries in the catechisms and the beautiful Lutheran hymnody,etc. This is how the simple people were taught during the reformation, and from there on all over the place for centuries, as well as every theologian was to exercise himself daily in those basics. The closest in my mind to a "compendium", guessing at what you mean, is this sort of thing.
How do you suggest people are to be instructed or instruct each other? Thanks.
joe,
No, there is not.
The Council of Trent "passed over in silence" the book of 3 Esdras, meaning that they did not judge whether it was canonical or not. This means that Rome has an open canon of Scripture. Not infallible, not even fallible. Still open.
Brigitte:
"natamllc, my reply to you seems harsh to me now. ...".
I don't know what happened last night before shutting off this computer?
I posted a comment that followed the earlier comment about thinking I was trying to trick you?
I am not nor would I want to trick anyone.
We are, after all, the Children of Light. And the catechisms, whether from the work Luther did or Calvin or others, if they do not establish that reality within our soul that we are God's Elect, called, chosen "Children of Light" in this fallen world fully receptive to the abundance of Grace and the gift of Righteousness through Christ something has gone wrong or someone has not taught us what the Holy Spirit teaches through the Scriptures or the catechisms, creeds and confessions?
I apologize to you Brigitte that any of my previous comments put that idea within you, "that I am trying to trick you!" Please forgive me. I so appreciate what you wrote, though, as it gives me a better sense of what I write and how it comes across to the ones I am writing a comment too?
Thanks for doing that.
I am happy to be "put" into the proverbial dock and examined by you to be questioned whether or not I am a trickster. I am happy to address this matter of trickery, too.
Please, again, accept my apology, Brigitte. It is not my intent to trick you into or out of some opinion or theology.
God alone saves His Children and He does it by proclamations and teachings, hopefully when a child is born into a Godly family established and grounded in the Faith and not as I, who came as a johnny come lately, coming to a revelation of Christ when I was 21 years old.
As for the topic, when I was a little boy, my dad, raised Catholic on the Indian Reservation he was born on, literally, wanted me to attend the Roman Catholic catechism class so as to be grounded in the Faith. I rebelled and he allowed me to stop going after several classes. It was years later that I came to Christ by way of "reading" the Bible, of all things! I was then baptized.
I am strongly paedo and when someone of a reasoning mind, who was not baptized as an infant wants to be baptized, I am glad to do it as other ministers I work with would be glad, also after going over the essentials of baptism so that they clearly see that regeneration precedes the baptism into Christ's particular body He is joining them too.
I fully believe Mary's flesh was discarded, so to speak and that flesh was picked up and buried somewhere near where she died. Her spirit, soul and body were assumed to the same Eternal Glory all of God's Elect are assumed to when they, too, pass.
Anyway, any how, again, please accept my apology for my earlier remarks that would cause you to think I was trying to trick you?
James,
I have commented after my last comment, to Brigitte and I don't see them in here, now?
Is there something wrong?
hi Rhology.
My RC friends have always said that Trent infallibly defined the canon and 3 Esdras is not in their list.
I certainly do not want to hijack the original topic...so do you have any support or evidence (links)for this claim (so I could research it myself). Do the RC's that visit here like Paul agree with your statement?
I have always heard from my RC friends that Trent infallibly defined the canon and it was the same as the earlier councils in the 4th century.
Not exactly sure what "passed over in silence" means. If they did not include 3 Esdras in their defined list, and the council was considered infallible, than I do not understand how it could still be open.
In Him,
Joe
natamllc, I'm sorry your dad let you out of catechism class, to be honest. Now you are biased against it without having gone through with it.
I don't have time today to make a long or thoughtful post.
I do encourage you to read and memorize Luther's Small Catechism before we talk again. Especially, the explanation to the second article of the creed, preaches the precious gospel to souls. Please, look it up.
I came late to it, as well, as in the German state church they did not bother teaching the catechism to us or drilling us in it. They did have us memorize all the wonderful hymns, and had us sing Bach cantatas in youth choirs, which was a fantastic treasure.
And then how does this compare with a compendium? What did you mean by compendium, and again, how do you think people ought to teach each other? Luther made the point that the catechism is supposed to be taught at home by the "father of the house". Many Lutheran churches now have a "family confirmation", where the family attends catechesis together. I think this makes a huge difference. If we can tell that our parents really care about this, and pray with us, etc., that this is the most effective "missionary work." Luther often said that as a parent we are "missionaries" to our children.
Sorry, obviously, you won't memorize the catechism before we talk again, unless you have an exceptional gift for memorizing. :)
Brigitte:
natamllc, I'm sorry your dad let you out of catechism class, to be honest.
Why would you be sorry for that? Do you believe the Roman Catholic Church has something to teach young boys about Jesus Christ?
I do encourage you to read and memorize Luther's Small Catechism before we talk again.
Huh? Why? I have read and I most likely will continue reading both the Small and Large catechisms.
Ok, I refreshed my memory reading again the second article. Ok, now what would you like to say about it?
The small catechism, like the large is brilliant. God gave Martin Luther some powerful insight. I don't think that is in question in here, is it?
Here in my Reformational Church, our youth sing Bach all the time. It is wonderful hearing 3 and 4 year old children sing Bach along with 10 and 12 year olds along with young adults as old as 22 and older. There is something about Bach that is addicting especially when those that sing his work do it in perfect tone and pitch and measure! Wow! Wow!
And then how does this compare with a compendium? What did you mean by compendium, and again, how do you think people ought to teach each other?
I was hoping you would just summarize your beliefs and maybe say a thing or two about the Commandments, particulars in the Creeds or Catechisms. Summarize your beliefs from your religious point of view is what I meant by giving a compendium.
As to how I teach and preach, inculcate, inculcate, inculcate formally and informally, read to and get others to read, as you have requested me to read the Small Catechism and then take the time to discuss what you have read and be ready to give a defense for the Hope that lies within you:
1Pe 3:13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?
1Pe 3:14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
1Pe 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
Brigitte, long before I started studying Luther and others like this great Reformer, I have done what you pointed out he taught:
Luther made the point that the catechism is supposed to be taught at home by the "father of the house".
In fact the moment my wife told me she was pregnant, I and she began praying for the child now growing in her womb. We prayed daily for the child and sang one particular song over the child daily. The very seconds and moments after and up to about 40 hours after birth, that first born child, a son, was either in my arms or my wife's. When he was in my arms I spoke over him the Scriptures and prayed.
continuing:::>
<:::continued,
I have had daily Bible studies with both my boys from the time they could listen, read, talk and teach! I kid you not. In my home for the last twenty plus years, that's what dad did with his two sons. It is habit that I and my sons have a breakfast together every Saturday. We haven't missed many of those times together.
We did the exact same for our second son as the first when my wife said she was pregnant again. Both are grow up now.
The first is married and serves this country in the United States Army at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, a Screaming Eagle, a crew chief on the Alpha Co. VIP Black Hawk. He has served one tour already in Afghanistan and has flown every major person in the Military and Policy for the United States, then, over there.
The other son is content to live at home and is very active in our fellowship. Albeit, he is only 17. He will turn 18 in three weeks. He is a leader among his peers and carries a lot of responsibility in our Church.
Have you ever taken time to study the WS or any of John Calvin or others to get a sense of the larger picture of the Body of Christ and members in particular?
Hi Joe,
here's what I mean.
If they did not include 3 Esdras in their defined list, and the council was considered infallible, than I do not understand how it could still be open.
They infallibly gave no answer. That means the question is still open.
"They infallibly gave no answer. That means the question is still open."
I reviewed the thread that you linked to Rhology, thanks!
When lay Catholics and apologists are compelled to theorize over what the Council of Trent meant by the word "all" in regards to the list of canonical books, it is clear that infallibility fails to deliver on its promise.
The new Lutheran Study Bible from CPH has excellent running commentary and introductions as well as "Law and Gospel" points. Excellent. I find the compacts easier to read than the regular edition, also nicer to hold and handle (durable soft cover).
Hi Paul.
I saw your last post via email, but see now that it is gone.
But, just wanted to clarify and ask if you agree that the earlier councils declared 3 Esdreas to be canonical whereas Trent did not?
I have always been told by RC friends that the canons were the same...but from your last post that was deleted, it appears that you may disagree with this.
Thanks.
In Him,
-Joe
Hello again Rhology and EA,
Not meaning to sound like a broken record or disappoint you again but you are reading far too much into the doctrine of infallibility. The charism of infallibly is a "negative charism" or gift from the Holy Spirit. It does NOT mean that the Pope or a council can just arbitrarily make up a doctrine. Just the opposite. Infallibility prevents the Church from arbitrarily making up doctrines like Luther and Calvin did. When that gift is invoked within the parameters of canon law, the statement made by a Pope is WITHOUT error.
But by the same token, it does not mean that the infallible truth is the whole truth. For that matter, it does not mean that an infallible teaching cannot be further developed or formulated (meaning-further clarified or defined). It only means that whatever was defined by the Pope or Council or by universal assent of the bishops or faithful is free of theological error. Given the beauty, wonder and limitless depths of God's self-revelation to us in the Scriptures and in His Church, can any of us 20 centuries after Our Lord first taught His disciples dare to claim that we know fully the Truth contained in that revelation? So why would a pope or council ever be able to define something that closes the door to God's continuing activity in the Church? All men can only know partially until "the perfect comes."
As far as 3 Esdras goes, the Church recognizes the work as inspirational, but does not (yet) recognize it as inspired.
Rhology and EA, I realize that such will be disappointing to you also. However, since you think so little of the appliability of infallibility, perhaps you both can describe for us what efforts you undertook to ascertain that 3 Esdras is not canonical. Or for that matter, how have you tested the rest of the books in your particular flavor or version of the Scriptures to determine the canonicity and divine inspiration of every line contained therein? Can you elucidate your efforts to read the texts in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and which codexes you critically studied?
Or when you bought your NIV, KJV, NRSV, or NASB bibles, did you just take someone else's word for which books belong in the Bible? When the person(s) who decided which books belong in your Bible did so, did they act fallibly or infallibly? Are you sure to a certitude that they were right? If so, please tell us how you infallibly came to that certitude.
Getting back to 3 Esdras, given how many ECF's did cite to it and the fact that Jerome did include it in the Vulgate, can you tell us why the fathers at Trent were not willing to decide the question?
Have you read 3 Esdras yourselves? Aside from 2 1/13 chapters, were you aware that 3 Esdras copies portions of 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah? You would agree with me that those parts are inspired, right? Since the bulk of the book is reproduced in other books of the Scriptures, do you believe that there was a burning necessity for the fathers at Trent to definitively decide the issue?
Bottom line, if I am wrong to rely on the infallibility of the Church to determine the canon, why are you not wrong in relying on another human being's fallible determinations what constitutes the canon of God's Word?
God bless!
Though Paul removed his last comment, several pieces of it are commonly asked by RCs so I'll post my replies anyway.
perhaps you both can describe for us what efforts you undertook to ascertain that 3 Esdras is not canonical.
That is irrelevant to the question I was addressing here, which was whether RCC's canon of Scr is open or closed.
Can you elucidate your efforts to read the texts in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and which codexes you critically studied?
Even if I were discussings 3 Esdras' potential canonicity, I don't understand how this question is relevant either.
did you just take someone else's word for which books belong in the Bible?
Yes, of course; I relied on God.
And it's not a question of (in)fallibility; it's a question of truth.
If I am wrong to rely on the infallibility of the Church to determine the canon, why are you not wrong in relying on someone else's fallible determinations what constitutes the canon?
How is the RCC infallible in its canonical pronouncements when it couldn't even decide whether the book was canonical?
Joe,
Don't forget that the councils that your RC friends are referring to were not infallible, ecumenical councils. They were merely small-scale, regional get-togethers.
Paul,
having butted heads with you before and it got us nowhere, what can I say, but I must be a glutton for punishment?
Setting aside your inquires to Rhology, I am inspired to quote you and ask by way of a rebuttal to your words what you think, then?
You wrote:
"...Have you read 3 Esdras yourselves? Aside from 2 1/13 chapters, were you aware that 3 Esdras copies portions of 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah? You would agree with me that those parts are inspired, right?..."
Ok, yes, I have read 3 Esdras before, a very long time ago, though, when I had my St. Joseph Bible. I have misplaced it after the move so I cannot grab it presently to refer to it.
But, in the citation I made of your words, above, italicized, when I read them, I immediately went to these verses of Scripture as a way of throwing cold water on your hot coals:
Mat 4:3 And coming near to Him, the Tempter said, If You are the Son of God, speak that these stones may become loaves.
Mat 4:4 But answering, He said, It has been written: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every Word going out of the mouth of God." Deut. 8:3
Mat 4:5 Then the Devil takes Him to the holy city, and he set Him on the wing of the temple.
Mat 4:6 And he said to Him, If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it has been written: "He shall give His angels charge concerning You, and they shall bear You on their hands, lest You strike Your foot against a stone." LXX-Psa. 90:11, 12; MT-Psa. 91:11, 12
Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, Again it has been written: "You shall not tempt the Lord your God." Deut. 6:16
Mat 4:8 Again the Devil takes Him to a very high mountain, and shows to Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
Mat 4:9 And he said to Him. I will give all these things to You if falling down, You will worship me.
Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, Go, Satan! For it has been written: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and you shall serve Him only." Deut. 6:13
Mat 4:11 Then the Devil left Him. And behold! Angels came near and ministered to Him.
Now, we both know who the tempter is recorded there in Matthew's Gospel record. And we both know from which book of the Scriptures he was quoting from when he was going after the Living Christ!
You would agree with me, would you not, that those parts quoted from Deuteronomy are inspired words, correct?
And certainly you would also agree that the tempter using them against the Living Christ did not make the book in question invalid just because the tempter himself is an invalid?
As for these words of yours, too, by them are you not justifying why you are against sola scriptura?:
"...But by the same token, it does not mean that the infallible truth is the whole truth. For that matter, it does not mean that an infallible teaching cannot be further developed or formulated (meaning-further clarified or defined). ...".
What you are doing by saying that is asking those of us who hold to the Scripture alone, to disregard the Scriptures and what they plainly teach and make such Scriptures as these void, huh?
Jer 17:5 Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Jer 17:6 He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.
Jer 17:7 "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD.
Jer 17:8 He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit."
In fact, one can easily see that you are asking us to be cursed by adhering to the extra further developed or formulated teachings of the RCC.
Hi Rhology, I did not delete the comment, I corrected a material typo.
Q: Perhaps you both can describe for us what efforts you undertook to ascertain that 3 Esdras is not canonical.
Your A: That is irrelevant to the question I was addressing here, which was whether RCC's canon of Scr is open or closed.
Me: Actually, the original question had to do with whether Mary died or not before she was assumed into heaven. But, we are now addressing your argumentation. The query I asked is very relevant. If 3(1) Esdras is canonical, then it should have been included and if so, where does that put you if your canon is closed? Do you get to re-open it like the Reformers did? If so, who decides whether that happens or not in the Protestant system?
But to answer your question, the Catholic canon is closed unless there are overwhelming reasons presented in the future to unlock the door and re-open it. And that is no different than what Fr. Luther and the other reformers appropriated for themselves and re-opened that door to toss out 7 O.T. books and made their own determinations as to whether several of the books of the NT should be a part of the canon. That they got it right is not relevant; that they thought they could do so is.
Defining the canon at Trent was necessary. What was Sententia certa before (since the canon had not been a seriously at issue for a thousand years), now had to be more certainly defined in response to the reformers’ efforts to edit the scriptures. The Council of Trent did that. If the Holy Spirit protected the Church from making an error of including 3 (1) Esdras-great! If the Holy Spirit, working within the Church, someday provides her with the means to be determine with infallible certainity that 3 (1) Esdras should be included-great! Thank God He gave us a Church that can do that.
Q: Can you elucidate your efforts to read the texts in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and which codexes you critically studied?
Your A: Even if I were discussings 3 Esdras' potential canonicity, I don't understand how this question is relevant either.
Me: Well, you have challenged the doctrine of infallibility on the basis of 3 Esdras. Since you are claiming that your canon is closed, I am asking how you closed it since you reject the authority of a magisterium to do that. Did you ever test your assumptions that the reformers were right to re-open the issue of the canon and toss out a number of books that the Church holds should be there? If so, how did you do so?
cont.
Q: Did you just take someone else's word for which books belong in the Bible?
Your A: Yes, of course; I relied on God.
Me: I see. So did I. So since both of our Bibles have the 7 deuterocanonical books of the O.T. and neither of our bibles have 3(1) Esdras in them, what are we arguing about? I am happy that God guided both of us correctly then. :) I relied on my faith in Christ Jesus and the Church He established and the gift of infallibility He graced it with. You relied on your own personal infallibility that you heard God correctly. I must ask though, are your private revelations from God binding on your fellow Calvinists? If not, how did they decide that the Reformer’s canon is correct?
You: And it's not a question of (in)fallibility; it's a question of truth.
Me: I agree. Infallibility only protects the transmission of truth, but it is not truth itself. That said, infallibility is a great gift from God given to His Church to make sure that the questions of truth are answered correctly. Someday, I hope and pray that you will see that.
Q. If I am wrong to rely on the infallibility of the Church to determine the canon, why are you not wrong in relying on someone else's fallible determinations what constitutes the canon?
Your A: How is the RCC infallible in its canonical pronouncements when it couldn't even decide whether the book was canonical?
Me: It did decide. You just don’t like its decision. That the fathers of Trent showed more humility than you on this issue is your personal stumbling block, not mine. The infallibility you give yourself is idolatry pure and simple. In contrast, the infallibility the Church exercises was given to it by God as a grace.
God bless!
"(D)id you just take someone else's word for which books belong in the Bible?"
Yes, I did (in part at least).
However, I have also read about how the canon of Scripture has come down to us, what other books were under consideration, the arguments for and against those books, etc... I did enough research and thinking to have confidence that my Bible contains the Word of God. Every Christian need not evaluate the MS evidence for themselves to convince themselves that the canon is correct. Since I have a high view of God's Providence I can rely on the fact that God has raised up believers in previous generations to help sort these issues out. Why should I re-invent the wheel?
"(I)f I am wrong to rely on the infallibility of the Church to determine the canon, why are you not wrong in relying on another human being's fallible determinations what constitutes the canon of God's Word?"
Old Testament Jews somehow were able to discern the Word of God without an infallible Magesterium, were they wrong? Also, it is not as if the Magesterium did the heavy lifting with regard to evaluating the texts for the Canon. That job fell to Jerome, Marcion, & Augustine, etc. But Jerome, Marcion, & Augustine are not infallible, neither did they start from a blank canvas; they were working from versions of texts that were already in circulation and in use by local churches well before even the Councils of Hippo & Carthage. How is it that early Christians recognized the Word of God without Magesterial Pronouncements? The RCC finally got around to "infallibly" defining the Canon at Trent; Hippo & Carthage being regional councils could not define the canon for the Universal Church. How did Christians recognize the canon up to that point? The answer is by common usage and by the fact that God's sheep hear His voice.
The bottom line is the dogmatic definition, which is only one sentence IN MD, does not define whether she died before the Assumption - only that she, after she finished the course of this life, was assumed - body and soul - into Heaven.
Faithful Catholics can (and do) argue for either side of this debate, and they remain faithful Catholics for again, whether or not the Blessed Virgin died first is not part of the definition.
I have a fuller response here: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2011/10/did-mary-die.html
Scott<<<
Paul Hoffer said:
If 3(1) Esdras is canonical, then it should have been included and if so, where does that put you if your canon is closed?
It has no effect on me. 3 Esdras shouldn't be included.
However, I'd like to know how you know what to do with it. Whether it's included or not.
Especially if infallible knowledge of such things as the Canon are important. But maybe you think they're not important, in which case I'd have to ask why the RC Magisterium has made the effort to address it from time to time.
I don't see a way out of this for the consistent RC. But since you've been presented with very numerous arguments that have wrecked the RC position over the years and stubbornly cling to that rotting corpse, it won't surprise me to see you try to wriggle your way out again by ignoring questions and challenges and throwing out irrelevant tu quoques.
Do you get to re-open it like the Reformers did?...or to toss out 7 O.T. books
Please give us some reason to think that the Canon had been pronounced as closed by someone about whom:
1) I should care, and
2) you care
before the Reformation.
Then explain how even someone as recent as Cardinal Cajetan could hold to a different Canon than the modern RCC, and why I don't see you accusing him of "re-opening" the Canon. Good luck!
the Catholic canon is closed unless there are overwhelming reasons presented in the future to unlock the door and re-open it.
Is that what Trent said? Surely you're not presenting us with your fallible individual understanding of Trent, are you?
Defining the canon at Trent was necessary.
Since they didn't finish, I find that hard to believe. Sounds like a smokescreen.
Thank God He gave us a Church that can do that.
The Protestants have had it figured out for 500 years, and you're still clinging to your faith that the Magisterium will someday give you the answer to this question. They instead seem more interested in pronouncing Muslims as partakers with us in worship of God. This is why I pity RCs so much. Your hope lets you down all the time.
Since you are claiming that your canon is closed, I am asking how you closed it since you reject the authority of a magisterium to do that.
I didn't close it, so it's a bad question.
Did you ever test your assumptions that the reformers were right to re-open the issue of the canon and toss out a number of books that the Church holds should be there? If so, how did you do so?
Another bad question. You're on a roll!
So since both of our Bibles have the 7 deuterocanonical books of the O.T. and neither of our bibles have 3(1) Esdras in them, what are we arguing about?
Trent, Paul. We're talking about Trent.
Slow down, focus, answer the question.
You relied on your own personal infallibility that you heard God correctly
Not even close to correct. We're done here until you can engage my position with honesty.
Greetings in the LORD, James!
Father Ryan Erlenbush on that New Theological Movement thread said that the fact of Mary’s death “is at least a sententia certa. Father John Trigilio over at EWTN holds that it is only a sententia probabilis. You’ll also find a good discussion about this over on Father Z’s blog under, “Feedback on my ‘breathlessly false claims’ about Mary’s Dormition.’ ” Down in the comments for Father Z’s post, you’ll find the suggestion that it may fall somewhere in the middle as a sententia communis. I think this final suggestion is correct.
John Paul II, in his General Audience on June 25, 1997, said that “it would be difficult to maintain” that Mary didn’t die. He points out that the opinion “that the Blessed Virgin did not die and was immediately raised from earthly life to heavenly glory… was unknown until the 17th century.” Contrary to this more recent opinion, he points out that the “Fathers of the Church… had no doubts in this regard.” This “no doubts” language, among other things he says, exhibits John Paul II’s desire to persuade us to believe that Mary died. He teaches on it as if it certainly happened, and he seeks to remove potential obstacles to faith by reconciling the fact with other aspects of our faith. These considerations might lead us to think that her death is a sententia certa. Nevertheless, he points out at the same time that Pius XII “did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers,” and he doesn’t say anything to suggest that things have changed in this regard. John Paul II says that the contrary opinion is “difficult” to maintain, not erroneous, or rash, or incompatible with anything else we believe. So, while Pius XII and John Paul II both taught her death as a fact, neither presented it as a truth that must be believed by the faithful, and the latter pope drew attention to the fact that “the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, following my Venerable Predecessor Pius XII, made no pronouncement on the question of Mary’s death.”
All things considered, and using Ludwig Ott’s classification system, I favor the view that the fact of Mary’s death is a sententia communis, and that the opposite view should be seen as an opinio tolerata. But, being only an amateur apologist, that I am wrong on this is a sententia probabilis. :)
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
Post a Comment