tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post5550063201245851921..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Words mean things (1)James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-50170019270115724612011-01-07T17:52:14.684-05:002011-01-07T17:52:14.684-05:00Ikonophile,
Reading your comment again, I realize...Ikonophile,<br /><br />Reading your comment again, I realized I didn't really answer it correctly. <br /><br />"Does the Eucharist unite you to Christ in the Catholic Church? "<br /><br />The answer is YES, it does unite us to Christ. All who partake in the Eucharist (Orthodox and Catholics) are united. <br /><br />It's different than Baptism and Penance which unite us to the "Body of Christ" (ie the Church). <br /><br />This unity is a "communion" which transcends time where we (all of heaven and earth)from the past, into the present and into the future are all united together at the foot of the cross.TheDenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249467690546096072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82113994364774912162011-01-07T16:26:56.002-05:002011-01-07T16:26:56.002-05:00Ikonophile,
"You would be incorrect in your ...Ikonophile,<br /><br />"You would be incorrect in your analysis of the Holy Mysteries from the Orthodox perspective. "<br /><br />I really don't think the understanding on this is different between Orthodox and Catholic.<br /><br />As I mentioned earlier, I'm not Orthodox, however, I did find this in an EO catechism on line:<br /><br />"Grace unto sanctification is imparted through Baptism and Penance, and<br /> Grace for progress in the Christian life is given through the remaining<br /> five (5) Sacraments."<br /><br />Found in article 10 of the "Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Churth"<br /><br />http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/catechis.html<br /><br /><br />This idea is essentially the same as what I was talking about. From what I understand, Orthodox don't necessarily differentiate between Sanctifying and Actual Grace but the idea is there in the Orthodox Church. <br /><br />"What you have said sounds more like RC legal categories to me than Eastern Orthodoxy. And so it is."<br /><br />I think you're reading some person's opinion on this and not necessarily sound teaching.TheDenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249467690546096072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-2813925426703448492011-01-07T14:57:51.667-05:002011-01-07T14:57:51.667-05:00TheDen,
You would be incorrect in your analysis o...TheDen,<br /><br />You would be incorrect in your analysis of the Holy Mysteries from the Orthodox perspective. <br /><br />In fact, to my knowledge (though it isn't infallible) there isn't this distinction between sanctifying grace and non-sanctifying grace in the mysteries that works on the grace already given. At the Eucharist, we receive His very body and very blood, uniting us to Christ. What you have said sounds more like RC legal categories to me than Eastern Orthodoxy. And so it is.<br /><br />JohnIkonophilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410100250087375782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71432100983816249712011-01-07T14:06:11.036-05:002011-01-07T14:06:11.036-05:00Steelikat,
"So to me, sanctifying is sanctif...Steelikat,<br /><br />"So to me, sanctifying is sanctifying. I don't see any difference between sanctifying (but not very far?) and "further" sanctifying. "<br /><br />Again, I think this is just a difference in our understandings in thought between Protestants and Catholics. I think our term of "sanctification" would be closer to your term of "justification." I'm really not that familiar with Protestant thought so I'm not 100% sure. I can explain it more in detail perhaps after I'm done with work if you need me to.<br /><br /><br />Ikonophile,<br /><br />I'm pretty sure the EO idea is the same although I'm not sure as I'm not EO. <br /><br />The Catechism explains:<br /><br />"Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit," preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism." (CCC 1392)<br /><br />When we receive the Eucharist, we "receive the Body of Christ." We should already be united to Him through our Baptism and through our regular reception of the His Body, we further conform ourselves to Christ.<br /><br />If we are in a state of mortal sin, we should not receive His Body and Blood as we are not in "Communion" with Him and would need to be reconciled first per Scripture. (1 Corinthians 11:27-28).TheDenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249467690546096072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44652317243595685592011-01-07T13:39:13.606-05:002011-01-07T13:39:13.606-05:00The Den,
In response to your latest comment, just...The Den,<br /><br />In response to your latest comment, just one question.<br /><br />Does the Eucharist unite you to Christ in the Catholic Church? You said it was only Baptism and Reconciliation (which I'm assuming is confession, penance, etc. all rolled into one word).<br /><br />I'm Orthodox and the idea that the Eucharist does not unite one to Christ is very odd to my ears. I know RC and EO differ in large respects, I just didn't think it was so much so concerning the Eucharist.<br /><br />JohnIkonophilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410100250087375782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18507952310189213332011-01-07T13:19:22.716-05:002011-01-07T13:19:22.716-05:00TheDen,
Clear as mud, I'm afraid.
To me, gr...TheDen,<br /><br />Clear as mud, I'm afraid. <br /><br />To me, grace is the unmerited favor of God by which, primarily, he justifies sinners by imputing Christ's righteousness to them and, secondarily, he transforms justified believers by sanctifying and ultimately resurrecting and glorifying them so that they may enjoy an eternity united with God.<br /><br />So to me, sanctifying is sanctifying. I don't see any difference between sanctifying (but not very far?) and "further" sanctifying. <br /><br />I'm pretty sure we've strayed quite far from the topic, although I guess we are still talking about words and what they mean.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-5119290455308524462011-01-07T11:30:18.769-05:002011-01-07T11:30:18.769-05:00Stellikat,
I think this just a difference in term...Stellikat,<br /><br />I think this just a difference in terms for us. First, for the most part, yes I agree with what you say and yes, that is what marriage does.<br /><br />I’m fairly sure you persevered through all my comments from the previous post so I won’t rehash but I’ll give a quick explanation of this.<br /><br /><br />In the Catholic Church, there are seven sacraments. These sacraments (per Augustine) are visible signs that we are receiving God’s grace. (Note: God is not limited to giving grace by these sacraments. These are just visible signs that we are receiving His grace). <br /><br />Two of these sacraments give sanctifying grace and the other five build up the sanctifying grace that we have received.<br /><br />So, to build on what I had said earlier, we are saved in our unity with Christ. We are united to Christ through grace. The grace that we receive that unites us to Christ is our SANCTIFYING GRACE. This sanctifying grace is found in Baptism and in Reconciliation. <br /><br />The other five help us to grow in Christ and thus are grace but they’re not sanctifying (meaning that they do not unite us to Christ). With God’s help through the other sacraments, we further conform ourselves to Christ. <br /><br />So in marriage, it’s not that God is “sanctifying that man.” Rather, God’s further sanctifying that man. We get a better understanding of our relationship with God through our marriage and family. For example, it’s in fatherhood that I get a better understanding of God the Father. It’s in being a husband that I understand Christ and the Church. It’s in my arguments with my kid that I understand that I argue the same way with God and as my kid doesn’t understand that I’m only looking out for her best interests, I begin to understand that God is looking out for my best interests. <br /><br />The marriage however doesn’t save you and it’s not a requirement to be saved which is why it’s not sanctifying grace. If that were the case, you could make the argument that marriage is a requirement which is not true.TheDenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249467690546096072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70392246974795154882011-01-07T09:43:10.298-05:002011-01-07T09:43:10.298-05:00TheDen,
To be serious, I cannot see your point at...TheDen,<br /><br />To be serious, I cannot see your point at all. If God gives a man a better understanding of Christ’s love for us, our love for Christ and a better understanding of the obedience Christ commands from us, isn't God thereby sanctifying that man? Yet you say it is <i>not</i> sanctifying grace.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-55285120599833099722011-01-07T09:01:08.261-05:002011-01-07T09:01:08.261-05:00Steelikat,
"You're right, that sounds a ...Steelikat,<br /><br />"You're right, that sounds a lot more like desecration than sanctification to me. :-)"<br /><br />Well, the way that some people (Catholics/Protestants/whoever) treat marriage. Yeah I can see you point.TheDenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249467690546096072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25050768172873934202011-01-07T08:08:24.028-05:002011-01-07T08:08:24.028-05:00TheDen,
"The grace received from the sacrame...TheDen,<br /><br />"The grace received from the sacrament is not a sanctifying grace but rather a grace where we have a better understanding of Christ’s love for us, our love for Christ and a better understanding of the obedience Christ commands from us."<br /><br />You're right, that sounds a lot more like desecration than sanctification to me. :-)steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86885580539053979732011-01-06T21:59:52.205-05:002011-01-06T21:59:52.205-05:00Again, my apologies for not remembering what I wro...Again, my apologies for not remembering what I wrote in December. Yes, Marriage as a sacrament is evident here albeit not clear in your post for some reason. <br /><br />The sacrament can be found in v. 9: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” <br /><br />What Christ is saying is that a marriage is no longer between just a man and a woman. It’s now bonded by God. In marriage, we are bound together by God and this union cannot be separated. It is further delineated in Ephesians 5, marriage is a mystical union between husband and wife where a wife is obedient to her husband and a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the Church.<br /><br />Again, what this is saying is first, that both husband and wife be obedient to Christ (it really does NOT work without this first aspect). Then, the wife be obedient to the husband while the husband loves the wife--as Christ loves the Church. This marital love of the husband is a love of service. The husband serves the wife and gives her his entire life in service to her in order to deliver her to Christ in purity. <br /><br />The grace received from the sacrament is not a sanctifying grace but rather a grace where we have a better understanding of Christ’s love for us, our love for Christ and a better understanding of the obedience Christ commands from us.TheDenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249467690546096072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32331203225120454672011-01-06T21:42:56.301-05:002011-01-06T21:42:56.301-05:00“I'm wondering if "TheDen" would spl...“I'm wondering if "TheDen" would split hairs and protest that "NFP" is different from "Rhythym Method". He certainly wants to lump together "repent" and "do penance".”<br /><br />OK...there’s a RADICAL difference between the “Rhythm Method” and “NFP.” Something that we can discuss some other time.<br /><br />Just for your reference, the Sacrament of Penance isn’t just “doing penance” but rather consists of four elements. Confession, Contrition, Absolution, Penance. All four are equally important and all four are based out of Scripture. This rubric is what’s evolved since the early Church and what your scholars are likely referring to. Specifically the “Penance” which consists of an act given by the priest during the confession. <br /><br />Could this specific process have evolved because of the Latin Vulgate? I will concede that it’s a plausible/logical argument. Yet, all four elements have been present since the early Church.TheDenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249467690546096072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81717165157388973882011-01-06T21:42:26.629-05:002011-01-06T21:42:26.629-05:00John,
“"TheDen", how do you know? Erasm...John,<br /><br />“"TheDen", how do you know? Erasmus said it did. He translated it with a totally different word. “<br /><br />Alright, first off, I have no problem with Erasmus’s word choice. Personally, I see the words as interchangeable. Additionally, I don’t have a problem with Keener’s commentary. The Vulgate will have a large influence as it is the official translation of the Church nor do I really have issue with Keener’s understanding of John the Baptist’s use of the word repentance. This really is how I understand it as well. It’s a conversion. A complete turning back towards God. A commitment to return to Him. <br /><br />However, I do take issue with MacCulloch’s understanding. I don’t believe it was a mistranslation. While the process of “Doing Penance” has evolved over time, the process of penance is evident going back into the Old Testament. <br /><br />““Repentance” in the Gospels recalls not the “change of mind” earlier etymological interpreters sometimes supposed, but the biblical concept of “turning” or “returning” to God “<br /><br />Yes, this is the Catholic understanding as well. (CCC 1430)<br /><br />“So it was at this point that the original meaning of the Scriptures -- and the meanings of the words used to convey what those meanings were -- were changed.”<br /><br />Based on the quote you used, that’s a stretch. <br /><br /><br />“I am not blaming Jerome at all for this; the fact is, though, the meanings changed, the words [in translation] were not chosen to convey that original meaning. The words were chosen to "Romanize" the language of the bible.<br /><br />It is this "Romanization" that Erasmus and the humanists noticed, and which the Reformers sought to extricate from both the Bible and from the doctrines that had developed from (and intertwined themselves with the "Romanized text") in the intervening centuries.”<br /><br />Your thought process as Steelikat notes is anachronistic. Jerome “Romanizes” the Bible because he’s Roman. Not because of some nefarious plot by Damasus. I’m not following the logic in this. If John Bugay were to translate the Bible today, you would have an inherent bias towards American English with a Protestant bent. Is it hard to believe that Jerome would have a Roman bias with a Catholic bent? It still doesn’t make his translation a mistranslation. There’s nothing wrong with his use of “paenitentiam agere” as my understanding of “doing penance” is defined in the Catechism as “a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, and and of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed.” (CCC 1431). That’s the Catholic understanding of “paenitentiam agere” is which matches up quite well with Keener’s understanding.TheDenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01249467690546096072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-74441276224603697302011-01-06T14:06:14.306-05:002011-01-06T14:06:14.306-05:00John,
"Should have been "If you can som...John,<br /><br />"Should have been "If you can somehow document that Jerome's translation was based on an existing practice ..."<br /><br />Oh I see! I wasn't asserting that it was based on an existing practice, I was saying that there are two possibilities, that it was based on an existing practice or that the practice came into existence later. I then separately examined the implications of each of those two possibilities and showed that in either case the argument you presented in indented paragraphs doe not work.<br /><br />1. If the practice already existed then it is not something that came into existence later as a result of the mistranslation.<br /><br />2. If the practice did not already exist it was not a mistranslation <i>at the time Jerome wrote it.</i> (since the connotation could not have yet existed if the practice did not yet exist) In that case it may have been a translation that accidentally and weakly helped to lead to an abusive practice (yes, "agere" is sometimes best translated "to act" or "to do") but Jerome would have had no way to know that would happen since it was a harmless translation at his point in time.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-28060488787303197642011-01-06T13:35:33.759-05:002011-01-06T13:35:33.759-05:00I'm at work and I'll respond later tonight...I'm at work and I'll respond later tonight. Meanwhile, I had a typo too:<br /><br /><i>"If you can somehow document that Jerome's translation was based on an existing translation, then I'll say that you may be onto something."<br /><br />I don't know why you would say that, since I have never suggested that Jerome's translation was based on an existing translation.</i><br /><br />Should have been "If you can somehow document that Jerome's translation was based on an existing practice ..."John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67819235055221758242011-01-06T13:22:52.677-05:002011-01-06T13:22:52.677-05:00"my bother in Christ."
That was not a F..."my bother in Christ."<br /><br />That was not a Freudian slip, just a typo.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86625881907010051862011-01-06T12:51:31.592-05:002011-01-06T12:51:31.592-05:00John,
"A translation ultimately should be ba...John,<br /><br />"A translation ultimately should be based on exegetical considerations, which I've talked about at length here, not about how an existing practice might be read back into a text."<br /><br />Of course that's true, and if that represented what Jerome did his translation is rightfully called a mistranslation and he is rightly held responsible for the error. If that is the case, however, if the practice was an existing practice, it cannot also be the case that the practice would only come to be an existing practice later as a result of Jerome's translation.<br /><br />Lastly and most importantly, you are my bother in Christ and Please don't think I have accused you of anything. I saw paragraphs on a computer screen, noticed that they presented a logical error, and reacted to them impersonally as words on a screen, pointing out the logical error they contained. Your reaction to that involved misunderstanding the point I was making, and I have repeatedly tried to explain what I meant, to present my point in various ways so that you would understand.<br /><br />I certainly wasn't attacking you or making accusations about you, let alone two MacSomebodyorothers I don't even know.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42970030919486184852011-01-06T12:35:06.143-05:002011-01-06T12:35:06.143-05:00"you've spammed this thread pretty heavil..."you've spammed this thread pretty heavily with A BIG IF.you've spammed this thread pretty heavily with A BIG IF."<br /><br />A big if, indeed, and a critical one since it points out a logical contradiction.<br /><br />"Meanwhile, all that you've done is to insinuate that men like McGrath and MacCulloch..."<br /><br />I haven't insinuated anything about anybody. You<br />presented an argument in this blog and I reacted to it, pointing out a logical error in it. If the paragraphs that made up the argument had not been indented I would have reacted to it in exactly the same way.<br /><br />"If you can somehow document that Jerome's translation was based on an existing translation, then I'll say that you may be onto something."<br /><br />I don't know why you would say that, since I have never suggested that Jerome's translation was based on an existing translation.<br /><br />What I suggested is that if it is true Jerome was born into, that he received, a state of affairs wherein the phrase "paenitentiam agere" connoted an RC practice, "doing penance," that already existed (which connotation would make his translation a mistranslation), it cannot also be true that the practice only came to exist as a result of his translation.<br /><br />If, otoh the practice did not yet exist at Jerome's time, it cannot be the case that paenitentiam agere connoted that practice. In that case, it would not have been a mistranslation at that time.<br /><br />See?steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26309940824928383922011-01-06T11:11:18.205-05:002011-01-06T11:11:18.205-05:00Steelikat said: What I am saying is that if "...Steelikat said: <i>What I am saying is that if "paenitentiam agere," was an erroneous translation at the time Jerome translated it, if at that time the phrase already connoted the RC practice of "doing penance" after confession, the practice must have already existed at that time.<br /><br />If THAT is true, if the practice already existed at that time, it cannot also be true that the practice only came into existence later under the influence of that phrase.</i><br /><br />You don't know whether it existed at the time, and you've spammed this thread pretty heavily with A BIG IF.<br /><br />Meanwhile, all that you've done is to insinuate that men like McGrath and MacCulloch and Richards did not perform the due diligence that you think needs to be done to validate this one point.<br /><br />But you don't know that, either. You haven't demonstrated it, all you've done is insinuate.<br /><br />If you can somehow document that Jerome's translation was based on an existing translation, then I'll say that you may be onto something. But until you do that, your speculations are worthless. <br /><br />A translation ultimately should be based on exegetical considerations, which I've talked about at length here, not about how an existing practice might be read back into a text.<br /><br />So whether the practice was based on the translation, or the translation was based on the practice, either way, that's a horrible way to understand the Biblical texts, but it is standard practice for Roman doctrine.<br /><br />In any event, your speculations here have been worthless to the discussion; your accusations have absolutely no basis in fact.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6136119319148410512011-01-06T10:53:27.081-05:002011-01-06T10:53:27.081-05:00John,
"Paul makes an analogy, but so far, th...John,<br /><br />"Paul makes an analogy, but so far, the only connection between 'marriage' and 'sacrament' is a mistranslation."<br /><br />You lack imagination. You think the only possible way someone could use the extended passage to defend the idea that marriage is a sacrament is to point to the word "mysterion" (the Greek word for "sacrament.")<br /><br />I outlined another way in the comment box in a different thread. The really critical verse is 25. How can a man do what is commanded in that verse? He cannot, unless God graciously enables him to do so. That would fulfill one of the necessary conditions for something to be called a christian sacrament.<br /><br />Protestants disagree because they define the relevant condition slightly differently, but the Protestant definition still seems a little "ad hoc" to me. Why must we allow that only instruments of justification be called sacraments when sanctification, though secondary, is still a gracious work of God and in fact in the Calvinist understanding it is the raison d'etre of justification?steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20914581610440180482011-01-06T10:46:18.286-05:002011-01-06T10:46:18.286-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-53470523353217652062011-01-06T10:24:23.757-05:002011-01-06T10:24:23.757-05:00John,
"It was not Jerome's program to ma...John,<br /><br />"It was not Jerome's program to make the most accurate translation...<br />I am not blaming Jerome at all for this"<br /><br />You ought to. If you think that Jerome did not intend to make the most accurate transltion you ought to blame him for translating poorly.<br /><br />It is intent that makes blame appropriate. Only the lack of intent might excuse.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60348332737848283772011-01-06T10:19:28.317-05:002011-01-06T10:19:28.317-05:00John,
"Erasmus said it did."
If it is ...John,<br /><br />"Erasmus said it did."<br /><br />If it is true that Erasmus said the phrase connoted the RC sacramental "doing of penance" at the time Jerome wrote it, and if it is also true that Erasmus said that the RC sacramental "doing of penance" only came into existence after Jerome's time, then Erasmus contradicted himself.<br /><br /><br />I am not telling you that either of those things are true I am asserting that if both of those things are true Erasmus contradicted himself and that you ought to be able to understand why that is so.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20888161896580681722011-01-06T10:00:37.839-05:002011-01-06T10:00:37.839-05:00John,
" that Jerome may not be responsible f...John,<br /><br />" that Jerome may not be responsible for errors in the translation"<br /><br />I'm sorry, that's not what I was arguing. If there were errors in the translation, at the time Jerome wrote it, he is responsible for them. The translator is always responsible the errors in his translation.<br /><br />What I am saying is that if "paenitentiam agere," was an erroneous translation at the time Jerome translated it, if at that time the phrase already connoted the RC practice of "doing penance" after confession, the practice must have already existed at that time. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />If THAT is true, if the practice already existed at that time, it cannot also be true that the practice only came into existence later under the influence of that phrase.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />See?steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40388847711604303942011-01-06T09:32:06.420-05:002011-01-06T09:32:06.420-05:00I am at work too and I understand the constraints ...I am at work too and I understand the constraints of time. <br /><br />But "choosing a wedding as the backdrop for his first miracle" does not make marriage into a sacrament. "Christ and the church" is a mystery. But saying that doesn't make marriage a sacrament. Paul makes an analogy, but so far, the only connection between "marriage" and "sacrament" is a mistranslation.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.com