http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2013/02/10-point-refutation-of-common-arguments.html
"There is no OT precedent of infallibility (yet there has always been disagreement over Scripture). Given no such precedent, the burden of proof is not upon Protestants to disprove infallibility, which has been done ad nauseam by comparing Scripture with Trent etc., but upon Rome to positively prove infallibility. Yet how can one possibly prove Roman Catholicism from Scripture if Scripture is not effective in such matters?"
Showing posts with label infallibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infallibility. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Thursday, October 07, 2010
The super-duper-uper Magisterial authority (aka Part 3)
First came this post and its combox.
Next came this post and its combox.
Then Paul Hoffer wrote up a lengthy reply, found here. Unfortunately, as we'll see, he has left most of my argument untouched. His reply consists mostly of responses of the equivalent strength of "Nuh uh!" and self-repetition in the face of substantive rebuttal.
The way I wrote it is addressed to Paul.
You say:
I disagree with Rhology’s question begging statement that the Catholic Magisterium as an interpreter is useless because magisterial statements in turn need an interpreter in order for one to understand them
It's not question-begging. It's my contention.
unlike the Scriptures, one can consult the Magisterial interpreter and seek clarification of the decision or interpretation.
A point which I addressed clearly in my ROUND 2 post, in at least two ways. So far you're just ignoring my points, rather than interacting with them.
Namely, 1) the infinite regress (which tries and fails to solve the "problem" of human fallibility) and 2) the fact that the Magisterium virtually never actually does any clearing up of controversies when it easily could do so.
While more questions may have arose about the Church’s understanding of Christ’s nature, the Church was able to respond to them
Now that begs the question, that you can identify "The Church" and that "The Church" that you identify was in the right to do these things.
Don't go off on a rabbit trail and ask me whether I disagree with those councils' which have been later identified as Big-E Ecumenical Big-C Councils statements w.r.t. Christology; the point is that the later church identifies as "The Church" those people who actually won the struggle. The winners wrote the history books in a very real sense here. This is simply pointing to the position with which you agree today and saying "See? The Magisterium spoke!" There'd be no way to falsify the statement "The Magisterium spoke."
one does not have to decide all over again each time they are read what the Scriptures mean as the Church has already done that for them
1) But does one have to decide all over again each time Magisterial proclamations are read what they mean, as the Church has already done that for them?
2) How can one judge whether the Church spoke correctly in a given case?
3) How do you know when The Church spoke? Do you have a list of those infallible proclamations? If not, doesn't that leave open the very real possibility that you are ascribing authority and infallibility where none exists, and leaves you open to the problem of individual fallibility and error? And doesn't that mean that "just ask your priest or bishop" would be a completely useless answer?
If so, where is it and does it include itself in the list?
B/c you have no good answers to these questions, what this means for you is that your house is built on sand. Your Magisterium is a paper tiger, a golden gun that's never fired.
Disagreements between adherents who hold different views becomes the means by which doctrines are tested and determined leading to a shared understanding of the what the Church holds thereby leading to greater unity in faith. This is an advantage that those who claim to practice sola scriptura could never have.
Such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.
If attorneys were bound by some notion of sola scriptura, we would have to start over and decide what constituted the elements of contract
A statement that makes me think you don't even understand Sola Scriptura. This is a strawman. I'd've hoped that you, as an attorney, would put more effort into properly representing your opposition. What was it you said earlier?
“If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.”
we Catholics do not have to re-decide all of the old questions again
How about solving some of the ones that have remained all this time? I listed quite a few in my ROUND 2 post. Why don't you go ahead and show us where the Magisterium has cleared all of those up?
I must say though that the James White allusion ("Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law") you use is a bit vague.
I'm a bit of a fanboy, and he has said that numerous times during his Dividing Line webcast, just FYI. But he first said it in a debate, yes.
as a Catholic I too would say give me Romans 8 over the Code of Canon Law since Romans 8 is part of the Word of God and the Code of Canon Law
Um, except you just finished telling us we need the Magisterium to understand Romans 8 and clear up disagreements about it, whereas the Code of Canon Law comes from The Church, that body that can clear that stuff up for us! Why move the goalposts now?
Or are you perhaps working off James White’s reputation to lend your argument an air of Protestant magisterial authority?
If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.
Why does one need recourse to a super to the nth power authority in order to make a decision IN RESPONSE TO A DISPUTE?
B/c of the problem you've been trying to solve yourself! I've already dealt with this, like I mentioned above. When are you going to take the next step and actually deal with my response?
And if the parties to the dispute both come into the dispute with an “obedience in faith,” that is an attitude of assent to the teachings of the Church, the parties to the dispute will submit to the decision by the Magisterium rather than breaking off to form their own Church or advocate disobedience to the teachings of the Church.
A historically ignorant statement. This is faithful adherence to Sola Ecclesia!
"Don't listen; it's the Kool-Aid talking."
we need only one Magisterial authority.
And when ppl disagree about the meaning and application of its proclamations, what then?
I mean, since ppl's disagreement about the Scr's meaning and application means we need an infallible interpreting authority, let's be consistent, shall we? Which means you haven't dealt with my points at all.
Rhology’s smug argument suffers from more question begging as to whether the above referenced scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.
Oh, OK. Then I'll just say the same thing about any passage YOU bring up and claim that it's unclear. Unless you're less concerned about consistency than about defending Mother Rome.
For example, you'd said earlier in our interaction the following:
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?
Paul Hoffer's smug argument suffers from more question-begging as to whether the above referenced Scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.
No, it is Rhology that introduced the idea that a teaching authority is to be measured by the laity’s response and obedience to it as demonstrated above.
No no no no! YOU introduced the idea! You did! It's in your first comments! I just quoted you. Here it is again.
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?
You still haven't grasped my argument, and it's getting sad. Do you need to talk over the phone or something, so I can explain it to you? Maybe this is why you claim (when convenient) the Scriptures aren't perspicuous - you can't even understand my internal critique of your own position, and it's your position.
And since the Church has steadfastly taught since apostolic times that abortion is inherently immoral, evil, and sinful,
And since you can take any two Roman Catholics and ask them about abortion and get 2 different answers... let me virtually-quote Paul again:
Where the perspicuity of Magisterial proclamations fall by the wayside is when there are disputes between RCs as the Mag proclamations can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the whether it's OK to dismember babies. How does reliance on the Magisterium help when both parties rely upon them?
If Paul responds, "But it's not true that BOTH are relying on them!", he needs to tell us why that same answer is not available to me as well w.r.t. the Scripture. I won't hold my breath.
PH had said:
Unlike Protestantism which bolds that each person is his own magisterial authority
I'd responded: How do strawmen help the Roman cause? Is it Mag teaching that strawmen are the best strategy? Is that in Lumen Gentium too?
PH never answers but instead quotes some fallible individual who happens to go to his church, saying: When we speak of private judgment, then, let us be quite clear as to what we mean; it has its uses and it has its abuses. Private judgment, in the sense of compiling a creed for yourself out of the Bible, of accepting this doctrine and rejecting that, of judging what should be and what should not be an integral part of the truth revealed by God -- this, of course, is entirely forbidden, for it is directly contrary to the method of arriving at the truth instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
1) Luke 12:57“And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?"
Matthew 22: 29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."
Mark 12:26“But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses"
Luke 6:3And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him"
Mark 12:10“Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; 11THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?”
Matthew 19:4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE"
Hmm, isn't that crazy? Jesus actually pushed people back to the Scripture to correct when 2 people disagreed!
2) Unless Paul can produce an infallible list of Magisterial proclamations, he exercises private judgment in figuring what things the Church says that are infallible things to be obeyed and what things the Church says that are fallible and non-binding. Paul seems not to have yet wrestled with this problem, and I've given him several chances now over the course of this interaction.
3) He never apologises for the strawman or withdraws it. Doesn't encourage me to take his point very seriously, since he seems to be talking to someone else.
When opinion, or private judgment, or to borrow Rhology’s term “logical argumentation,” becomes the measure of truth it is only a matter of time before all doctrinal issues become irrelevant due to the utter subjectivity of one’s own opinion.
How does this address the rebuttal I've already laid out? It doesn't.
I even read an article where a bi-sexual woman who was promoted to the status of “bishop” in the Protestant Episcopal Church proclaim that abortion is sacramental! Where is Protestant unity on these matters or is redefining what constitutes sin a non-essential matter?
1) Ah, the tried-and-true method of lumping me in with flaming liberals! Maybe Paul would like to be held responsible for everything Mel Gibson does. After all, he's "Catholic". He says so! Just ask him!
2) Again, such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.
As I stated in the FIRST ROUND above, Jesus Christ is the measure of truth since He is the one Way, the Truth and Life, not logical argumentation.
Gosh, I wonder if anyone reading this will stop to wonder whether, when I say "logical argumentation", I mean it in the naturalistic materialist sense, or whether I mean it in the presuppositional Reformed sense, wherein one applies logical and contextual hermeneutics to the final standard of truth - God's Word? Hmmm... I guess I could go back to my blog and delete all the references to "but, believing in Jesus is more probably true than not b/c the Earth's axis is tilted just right!"
Oh wait, I don't say that kind of thing. Never mind. Then maybe Paul could actually do me the service of remembering to whom he's talking.
After all, I can point to some 252 dogmas that have been infallibly defined by my Magisterium.
That sounds like a fallible list to me. Where is Paul's imprimatur?
See, that's the thing - to Paul, apparently, the "authority and infallibility of the Magisterium" is a tool to be pulled out of the shed when convenient, say like a screwdriver, but when he needs to cut through a board, he hides his saw behind his back and tries to convince us all he's actually using the screwdriver. Then he shows us the cut board - "See?"
Buy into the sleight-of-hand at your own peril.
Next came this post and its combox.
Then Paul Hoffer wrote up a lengthy reply, found here. Unfortunately, as we'll see, he has left most of my argument untouched. His reply consists mostly of responses of the equivalent strength of "Nuh uh!" and self-repetition in the face of substantive rebuttal.
The way I wrote it is addressed to Paul.
You say:
I disagree with Rhology’s question begging statement that the Catholic Magisterium as an interpreter is useless because magisterial statements in turn need an interpreter in order for one to understand them
It's not question-begging. It's my contention.
unlike the Scriptures, one can consult the Magisterial interpreter and seek clarification of the decision or interpretation.
A point which I addressed clearly in my ROUND 2 post, in at least two ways. So far you're just ignoring my points, rather than interacting with them.
Namely, 1) the infinite regress (which tries and fails to solve the "problem" of human fallibility) and 2) the fact that the Magisterium virtually never actually does any clearing up of controversies when it easily could do so.
While more questions may have arose about the Church’s understanding of Christ’s nature, the Church was able to respond to them
Now that begs the question, that you can identify "The Church" and that "The Church" that you identify was in the right to do these things.
Don't go off on a rabbit trail and ask me whether I disagree with those councils' which have been later identified as Big-E Ecumenical Big-C Councils statements w.r.t. Christology; the point is that the later church identifies as "The Church" those people who actually won the struggle. The winners wrote the history books in a very real sense here. This is simply pointing to the position with which you agree today and saying "See? The Magisterium spoke!" There'd be no way to falsify the statement "The Magisterium spoke."
one does not have to decide all over again each time they are read what the Scriptures mean as the Church has already done that for them
1) But does one have to decide all over again each time Magisterial proclamations are read what they mean, as the Church has already done that for them?
2) How can one judge whether the Church spoke correctly in a given case?
3) How do you know when The Church spoke? Do you have a list of those infallible proclamations? If not, doesn't that leave open the very real possibility that you are ascribing authority and infallibility where none exists, and leaves you open to the problem of individual fallibility and error? And doesn't that mean that "just ask your priest or bishop" would be a completely useless answer?
If so, where is it and does it include itself in the list?
B/c you have no good answers to these questions, what this means for you is that your house is built on sand. Your Magisterium is a paper tiger, a golden gun that's never fired.
Disagreements between adherents who hold different views becomes the means by which doctrines are tested and determined leading to a shared understanding of the what the Church holds thereby leading to greater unity in faith. This is an advantage that those who claim to practice sola scriptura could never have.
Such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.
If attorneys were bound by some notion of sola scriptura, we would have to start over and decide what constituted the elements of contract
A statement that makes me think you don't even understand Sola Scriptura. This is a strawman. I'd've hoped that you, as an attorney, would put more effort into properly representing your opposition. What was it you said earlier?
“If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.”
we Catholics do not have to re-decide all of the old questions again
How about solving some of the ones that have remained all this time? I listed quite a few in my ROUND 2 post. Why don't you go ahead and show us where the Magisterium has cleared all of those up?
I must say though that the James White allusion ("Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law") you use is a bit vague.
I'm a bit of a fanboy, and he has said that numerous times during his Dividing Line webcast, just FYI. But he first said it in a debate, yes.
as a Catholic I too would say give me Romans 8 over the Code of Canon Law since Romans 8 is part of the Word of God and the Code of Canon Law
Um, except you just finished telling us we need the Magisterium to understand Romans 8 and clear up disagreements about it, whereas the Code of Canon Law comes from The Church, that body that can clear that stuff up for us! Why move the goalposts now?
Or are you perhaps working off James White’s reputation to lend your argument an air of Protestant magisterial authority?
If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.
Why does one need recourse to a super to the nth power authority in order to make a decision IN RESPONSE TO A DISPUTE?
B/c of the problem you've been trying to solve yourself! I've already dealt with this, like I mentioned above. When are you going to take the next step and actually deal with my response?
And if the parties to the dispute both come into the dispute with an “obedience in faith,” that is an attitude of assent to the teachings of the Church, the parties to the dispute will submit to the decision by the Magisterium rather than breaking off to form their own Church or advocate disobedience to the teachings of the Church.
A historically ignorant statement. This is faithful adherence to Sola Ecclesia!
"Don't listen; it's the Kool-Aid talking."
we need only one Magisterial authority.
And when ppl disagree about the meaning and application of its proclamations, what then?
I mean, since ppl's disagreement about the Scr's meaning and application means we need an infallible interpreting authority, let's be consistent, shall we? Which means you haven't dealt with my points at all.
Rhology’s smug argument suffers from more question begging as to whether the above referenced scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.
Oh, OK. Then I'll just say the same thing about any passage YOU bring up and claim that it's unclear. Unless you're less concerned about consistency than about defending Mother Rome.
For example, you'd said earlier in our interaction the following:
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?
Paul Hoffer's smug argument suffers from more question-begging as to whether the above referenced Scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood.
No, it is Rhology that introduced the idea that a teaching authority is to be measured by the laity’s response and obedience to it as demonstrated above.
No no no no! YOU introduced the idea! You did! It's in your first comments! I just quoted you. Here it is again.
Where the perspecuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them?
You still haven't grasped my argument, and it's getting sad. Do you need to talk over the phone or something, so I can explain it to you? Maybe this is why you claim (when convenient) the Scriptures aren't perspicuous - you can't even understand my internal critique of your own position, and it's your position.
And since the Church has steadfastly taught since apostolic times that abortion is inherently immoral, evil, and sinful,
And since you can take any two Roman Catholics and ask them about abortion and get 2 different answers... let me virtually-quote Paul again:
Where the perspicuity of Magisterial proclamations fall by the wayside is when there are disputes between RCs as the Mag proclamations can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the whether it's OK to dismember babies. How does reliance on the Magisterium help when both parties rely upon them?
If Paul responds, "But it's not true that BOTH are relying on them!", he needs to tell us why that same answer is not available to me as well w.r.t. the Scripture. I won't hold my breath.
PH had said:
Unlike Protestantism which bolds that each person is his own magisterial authority
I'd responded: How do strawmen help the Roman cause? Is it Mag teaching that strawmen are the best strategy? Is that in Lumen Gentium too?
PH never answers but instead quotes some fallible individual who happens to go to his church, saying: When we speak of private judgment, then, let us be quite clear as to what we mean; it has its uses and it has its abuses. Private judgment, in the sense of compiling a creed for yourself out of the Bible, of accepting this doctrine and rejecting that, of judging what should be and what should not be an integral part of the truth revealed by God -- this, of course, is entirely forbidden, for it is directly contrary to the method of arriving at the truth instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
1) Luke 12:57“And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?"
Matthew 22: 29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."
Mark 12:26“But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses"
Luke 6:3And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him"
Mark 12:10“Have you not even read this Scripture: ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; 11THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?”
Matthew 19:4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE"
Hmm, isn't that crazy? Jesus actually pushed people back to the Scripture to correct when 2 people disagreed!
2) Unless Paul can produce an infallible list of Magisterial proclamations, he exercises private judgment in figuring what things the Church says that are infallible things to be obeyed and what things the Church says that are fallible and non-binding. Paul seems not to have yet wrestled with this problem, and I've given him several chances now over the course of this interaction.
3) He never apologises for the strawman or withdraws it. Doesn't encourage me to take his point very seriously, since he seems to be talking to someone else.
When opinion, or private judgment, or to borrow Rhology’s term “logical argumentation,” becomes the measure of truth it is only a matter of time before all doctrinal issues become irrelevant due to the utter subjectivity of one’s own opinion.
How does this address the rebuttal I've already laid out? It doesn't.
I even read an article where a bi-sexual woman who was promoted to the status of “bishop” in the Protestant Episcopal Church proclaim that abortion is sacramental! Where is Protestant unity on these matters or is redefining what constitutes sin a non-essential matter?
1) Ah, the tried-and-true method of lumping me in with flaming liberals! Maybe Paul would like to be held responsible for everything Mel Gibson does. After all, he's "Catholic". He says so! Just ask him!
2) Again, such fideist claims fall apart under scrutiny.
As I stated in the FIRST ROUND above, Jesus Christ is the measure of truth since He is the one Way, the Truth and Life, not logical argumentation.
Gosh, I wonder if anyone reading this will stop to wonder whether, when I say "logical argumentation", I mean it in the naturalistic materialist sense, or whether I mean it in the presuppositional Reformed sense, wherein one applies logical and contextual hermeneutics to the final standard of truth - God's Word? Hmmm... I guess I could go back to my blog and delete all the references to "but, believing in Jesus is more probably true than not b/c the Earth's axis is tilted just right!"
Oh wait, I don't say that kind of thing. Never mind. Then maybe Paul could actually do me the service of remembering to whom he's talking.
After all, I can point to some 252 dogmas that have been infallibly defined by my Magisterium.
That sounds like a fallible list to me. Where is Paul's imprimatur?
See, that's the thing - to Paul, apparently, the "authority and infallibility of the Magisterium" is a tool to be pulled out of the shed when convenient, say like a screwdriver, but when he needs to cut through a board, he hides his saw behind his back and tries to convince us all he's actually using the screwdriver. Then he shows us the cut board - "See?"
Buy into the sleight-of-hand at your own peril.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
The Divine Nature of Scripture and the Magisterium
Whitaker comes to the defense of four arguments from Calvin, which Stapleton attempts to refute, the first of which is (in the words of Calvin, not the summary Whitaker provides) as follows (emphasis mine):
Yet what is Stapleton's reply? He claims that the Magisterium's judgment is not merely human, but really is both divine and infallible, therefore Calvin's argument fails to be of relevance.
Here Whitaker raises a point I would raise as well, one that is equally relevant today: "But what is the meaning of this assertion, that the church's judgment is not merely human? Be it so. But is it merely divine? For surely it is requisite that the truth of the promises of eternal life should be propped and supported by a testimony purely divine."2
What, exactly, is meant by saying that the nature by which the Magisterium has come to identify the canon for us is not just human opinion, but is divine and infallible, yet not totally divine and infallible? Scripture, we would say, has been inspired by God in a completely and totally divine manner, therefore it is binding and authoritative. The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of the Scriptures such that in no way did any of it originate or arise through human wisdom, creation, thought or contribution (even if human means--learning, intelligence, writing ability, etc.--were still used). It is completely and totally the intentions, thoughts, words, etc. of God toward humanity, therefore we should respect it as if God himself were speaking directly and presently to us.
But does the Magisterium, in its judgment that Scripture is really the Word of God, claim to be inspired, superintended, etc. by the same process as that which the Holy Spirit used to write inspired Scripture? I don't see how that's the case. Consider CCC #66 where the revealing of revelation proper is considered to have ended in the Apostolic era:
And since the infallible identification of the canon within Roman Catholicism first occurred at Trent, it cannot be said that this proclamation was purely divine. And if it is not purely divine, why is it ultimately binding?
Only the thoughts of God are infallible. These can be expressed through various means (the burning bush, dreams, written Scripture, etc.), yet all are categorized as revelation. If Roman Catholicism denies that the Magisterium has received additional revelation by which to identify the canon for believers, it is difficult to see how the pronouncements of Trent would be authoritatively binding in any real sense. Where in Scripture are the words of the uninspired ever held to the same authoritative standard as those who said or wrote inspired material? For Scripture there are two categories: inspired and uninspired. By placing itself in the latter camp, the Magisterium has denied itself access to binding, infallible authority.
But, returning to the line of argumentation provided by Whitaker, let us suppose it is divinely inspired in the same manner Scripture is divinely inspired. If it is divine, then it carries the same nature and authority as Scripture. But if that is the case, why do we need the former to know the latter? Cannot the divine nature of Scripture speak to us directly, just as the divine nature of the pronouncements of the Magisterium speaks to us directly? What is preventing us from accessing the authoritative of Words of God in Scripture directly?
_____________________________
1. Henry Beveridge, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.7.1.
2. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 340.
A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz.,that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than man's judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the goodwill of men?1
Yet what is Stapleton's reply? He claims that the Magisterium's judgment is not merely human, but really is both divine and infallible, therefore Calvin's argument fails to be of relevance.
Here Whitaker raises a point I would raise as well, one that is equally relevant today: "But what is the meaning of this assertion, that the church's judgment is not merely human? Be it so. But is it merely divine? For surely it is requisite that the truth of the promises of eternal life should be propped and supported by a testimony purely divine."2
What, exactly, is meant by saying that the nature by which the Magisterium has come to identify the canon for us is not just human opinion, but is divine and infallible, yet not totally divine and infallible? Scripture, we would say, has been inspired by God in a completely and totally divine manner, therefore it is binding and authoritative. The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of the Scriptures such that in no way did any of it originate or arise through human wisdom, creation, thought or contribution (even if human means--learning, intelligence, writing ability, etc.--were still used). It is completely and totally the intentions, thoughts, words, etc. of God toward humanity, therefore we should respect it as if God himself were speaking directly and presently to us.
But does the Magisterium, in its judgment that Scripture is really the Word of God, claim to be inspired, superintended, etc. by the same process as that which the Holy Spirit used to write inspired Scripture? I don't see how that's the case. Consider CCC #66 where the revealing of revelation proper is considered to have ended in the Apostolic era:
The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And since the infallible identification of the canon within Roman Catholicism first occurred at Trent, it cannot be said that this proclamation was purely divine. And if it is not purely divine, why is it ultimately binding?
Only the thoughts of God are infallible. These can be expressed through various means (the burning bush, dreams, written Scripture, etc.), yet all are categorized as revelation. If Roman Catholicism denies that the Magisterium has received additional revelation by which to identify the canon for believers, it is difficult to see how the pronouncements of Trent would be authoritatively binding in any real sense. Where in Scripture are the words of the uninspired ever held to the same authoritative standard as those who said or wrote inspired material? For Scripture there are two categories: inspired and uninspired. By placing itself in the latter camp, the Magisterium has denied itself access to binding, infallible authority.
But, returning to the line of argumentation provided by Whitaker, let us suppose it is divinely inspired in the same manner Scripture is divinely inspired. If it is divine, then it carries the same nature and authority as Scripture. But if that is the case, why do we need the former to know the latter? Cannot the divine nature of Scripture speak to us directly, just as the divine nature of the pronouncements of the Magisterium speaks to us directly? What is preventing us from accessing the authoritative of Words of God in Scripture directly?
_____________________________
1. Henry Beveridge, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.7.1.
2. William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 340.
Monday, September 13, 2010
A Quick Comment on the White - Ferrara Debate
If you heard the recent White - Ferrara "Debate on the Immaculate Conception & Sinlessness of Mary" you heard Mr. Ferrara repeatedly appeal to the absolute trustworthiness of Rome. Consider though the following:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Ten years after the Vatican divulged one of the church's best-kept secrets -- the third part of the message of Fatima -- a small band of skeptics and critics are still questioning the official explanation.
More than 100 of them gathered at a hotel not far from the Vatican in early May for a weeklong conference on such topics as "Fatima and the Global Economic Crisis," "The Present Need for the Consecration of Russia" and "Is There a Missing Text of the Third Secret?"
For those in attendance, the answer to that last question is a no-brainer.
"The evidence points to only one conclusion: that something has to be missing," said Christopher A. Ferrara, a U.S. attorney and Catholic commentator who spoke at the conference.
Ferrara pointed to what he described as a series of incongruities and inconsistencies in the Vatican's version. Among people truly familiar with the events at Fatima, he said, only a minority "cling steadfastly to the notion that an ambiguous vision of a bishop dressed in white outside a half-ruined city is all there is to the third secret."
I'm assuming the person above in this article is the same man from the debate.
I'm not sure when this debate will be available, but I highly recommend it.
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Ten years after the Vatican divulged one of the church's best-kept secrets -- the third part of the message of Fatima -- a small band of skeptics and critics are still questioning the official explanation.
More than 100 of them gathered at a hotel not far from the Vatican in early May for a weeklong conference on such topics as "Fatima and the Global Economic Crisis," "The Present Need for the Consecration of Russia" and "Is There a Missing Text of the Third Secret?"
For those in attendance, the answer to that last question is a no-brainer.
"The evidence points to only one conclusion: that something has to be missing," said Christopher A. Ferrara, a U.S. attorney and Catholic commentator who spoke at the conference.
Ferrara pointed to what he described as a series of incongruities and inconsistencies in the Vatican's version. Among people truly familiar with the events at Fatima, he said, only a minority "cling steadfastly to the notion that an ambiguous vision of a bishop dressed in white outside a half-ruined city is all there is to the third secret."
I'm assuming the person above in this article is the same man from the debate.
I'm not sure when this debate will be available, but I highly recommend it.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Infallible Papal Bulls
Sometimes simply asking a question can be interesting. Here's a Catholic Answers inquiry-
Greetings,
I am familiar with Mr. Akin's article here. Based on his opening comment, "Many people have a difficult time discerning when the magisterium has engaged its infallibility and when it hasn’t," is it the responsibility of individual Roman Catholics to determine which Papal statements are infallible, or has the Magisterium provided an infallible list of which historical papal declarations are infallible?
Thanks.
Greetings,
I am familiar with Mr. Akin's article here. Based on his opening comment, "Many people have a difficult time discerning when the magisterium has engaged its infallibility and when it hasn’t," is it the responsibility of individual Roman Catholics to determine which Papal statements are infallible, or has the Magisterium provided an infallible list of which historical papal declarations are infallible?
Thanks.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
The Shroud of Turin and evolution
Umm, right, so Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, has spoken out in "favor" of the Shroud of Turin, basically saying that it is authentic, that it really is the shroud in which Jesus was wrapped after His crucifixion.
From here:
1) So the Pope is more than happy to come out in support of the theory of evolution because "the scientists" think it's true, and yet when scientists present evidence using very similar methodologies (ie, radiocarbon dating) that the Shroud of Turin is actually only around 800 years old, he ignores it and leads his people in acts of piety that express dissent with the scientific opinion?
And don't try to play the "but there's debate within scientific circles on the Shroud" card. There's plenty of debate in scientific circles about evolution as well, not to mention a ludicrous amount of logical argumentation against it. The Pope went with the scientific "academy" then, why the inconsistency now?
2) These and other news articles are careful to say that Benedict "all but endorses its authenticity".
It is mind-boggling to me that this man would do such a disingenuous thing as to hold a "meditation" in front of this object, modeling meditation on the Cross of Christ, when there's plenty of reason to doubt that it actually is the shroud that wrapped Christ's body for a time. Further, all the reason to doubt aside, could not the Pope make a pronouncement that it either is or isn't authentic, for sure? Why dance around the issue? Does it matter whether the shroud actually wrapped Christ or doesn't it? When the Pope speaks infallibly, is he right even when the contemporary "scientific establishment" disagrees or not?
It seems very comparable to the RC practice of bowing down and performing acts of religious and worshipful piety in front of and directed toward pictures of dead people. Outside of icons of Christ Himself and a few specifically-identified elect angels, such as Gabriel and Michael, the RC worshiper has zero guarantee that the dead person to whom he's praying is actually in Heaven. S/He might be in Hell, or s/he might be in Purgatory. The Magisterium could clear all that up, but chooses not to, chooses not to get involved in such trivial matters as truth in worship and spiritual meditation.
It's pathetic, really. How is this the action of a church that is the self-proclaimed "pillar and support of the truth"?
From here:
Benedict focused in his meditation on the message that the blood stains conveyed, saying the Shroud was "an icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was whipped, crowned with thorns, crucified and injured on his right side.I have two thoughts on this incident.
"The image on the Shroud is that of a dead man, but the blood speaks of his life. Each trace of blood speaks of love and life," Benedict said.
The Vatican to date had tiptoed around the issue of just what the Shroud of Turin is, calling it a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering while making no claim to its authenticity.
1) So the Pope is more than happy to come out in support of the theory of evolution because "the scientists" think it's true, and yet when scientists present evidence using very similar methodologies (ie, radiocarbon dating) that the Shroud of Turin is actually only around 800 years old, he ignores it and leads his people in acts of piety that express dissent with the scientific opinion?
And don't try to play the "but there's debate within scientific circles on the Shroud" card. There's plenty of debate in scientific circles about evolution as well, not to mention a ludicrous amount of logical argumentation against it. The Pope went with the scientific "academy" then, why the inconsistency now?
2) These and other news articles are careful to say that Benedict "all but endorses its authenticity".
It is mind-boggling to me that this man would do such a disingenuous thing as to hold a "meditation" in front of this object, modeling meditation on the Cross of Christ, when there's plenty of reason to doubt that it actually is the shroud that wrapped Christ's body for a time. Further, all the reason to doubt aside, could not the Pope make a pronouncement that it either is or isn't authentic, for sure? Why dance around the issue? Does it matter whether the shroud actually wrapped Christ or doesn't it? When the Pope speaks infallibly, is he right even when the contemporary "scientific establishment" disagrees or not?
It seems very comparable to the RC practice of bowing down and performing acts of religious and worshipful piety in front of and directed toward pictures of dead people. Outside of icons of Christ Himself and a few specifically-identified elect angels, such as Gabriel and Michael, the RC worshiper has zero guarantee that the dead person to whom he's praying is actually in Heaven. S/He might be in Hell, or s/he might be in Purgatory. The Magisterium could clear all that up, but chooses not to, chooses not to get involved in such trivial matters as truth in worship and spiritual meditation.
It's pathetic, really. How is this the action of a church that is the self-proclaimed "pillar and support of the truth"?
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
The Pillar and Support of the Truth
One of the ongoing contentions that I will make going forward, Lord willing, is that the Roman Catholic Church is not what it says it is. (Just as a housekeeping note, I prefer to say “Roman Catholic Church” because that is the term favored by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in his work “The Catholic Moment”. As a shorthand, I will also abbreviate “Roman Catholic Church” simply with the word “Rome” or “Roman”.)
Rome is not what it says it is. I’ve spoofed this notion here, but it’s going to be important to deconstruct each of the various things it claims for itself in order to support my initial contention.
Catholic writers often cite 1 Tim 3:15 in support of indefectibility or infallibility of the church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church itself has made this interpretation an article of faith, most recently in Lumen Gentium 8:
My contention in this posting is that Rome’s official usage of this verse is wrong at best. But what’s worse is that in popular apologetics, Roman apologists are going far beyond what even Rome says in this verse.
One popular Catholic writer said this:
But is that what Paul tried to say? Is that what he actually said?
It seems to me that for Catholics to try to force their meaning on this phrase is a fundamentally dishonest use of this language.
Daniel Wallace, a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, has written many textbooks on the Greek language. Here’s what he said:
“Before we can know what a particular text means we must know what it says.”
(From his essay, “Laying a Foundation: New Testament Textual Criticism in the work “Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis”.)
Let's look at the verse in a bit of context (ESV translation):
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
The NASB translation for this phrase is “the pillar and support of the truth.”
It’s important to note the word that gets translated by various translators as “mainstay” (the Vatican website translation), “buttress,” “support”. I’ve also seen “bulwark.”
It’s true that the phrase has the leadership of the church in mind (see Galatians 2). But they are called to “support” “the truth” not in terms of a “teaching authority,” but by their behavior (a notion that should, and does, lead directly into qualifications for elders)
Philip H. Towner, in his (2006) New International Commentary on the New Testament, says that “church of the living God” is not the key phrase, but “household” is. “The church” in Paul’s conception here is “a clarification,” a relative clause” for the truth that the universal church, all members of the church, really comprise “the household of the Living God.”
LT Johnson, a Catholic commentator, works through the various phrases of this selection. First, of the “church of the Living God” here, the “ekklesia,” he notes that “household of God” is the prime metaphor, “not least because Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy are directed to matters of public concern to the ekklesia, not to matters of domestic economy. That this assembly is one gathered by “the living God” is of first importance thematically (4:10, 5:6) and theologically, for it means that the church does not contain or control God, but is only in service to the one who moves always ahead of humans in surprising yet faithful ways.” Note also that the Catholic definition of "church" is not in view at all in that phrase. (Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, "The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary", Luke Timothy Johnson, p. 231).
The phrase he gives as “a pillar and support for the truth” are the Greek words “stylos kai hedraioma,” which he says are “architectural terms for ‘supports, stays, or pillars.”
In his New International Greek Testament Commentary, a commentary series which examines the Greek text, George Knight says it’s not doctrine that’s in view at all, it’s conduct. “So even though building terminology is utilized, since the conduct (of the individuals) in view relates to the interaction of the members of God’s family, modern translations have opted for “household” … The standards of conduct given “are no mere rules of etiquette, they are standards for the house/household that is none other than God’s. They provide directions for conduct in his temple, where he dwells by his Spirit, and they provide directions for relationships among his people.” (180). He says further that “Timothy and the church will conduct their lives appropriately if they remember that they are the home built and owned by God and indwelt by him as the living one, and also remember that they are called on to undergird and hold aloft God’s truth in word and deed.” (182)
Individual members of the household of God “support the truth” by bearing witness to it with their behavior. This is precisely Paul’s exhortation to the church in Romans 12:1-3:
Paul's illustration of the "church" is first that of a "household." The Vatican usage is wrong. As for the apologist’s comment to which I referred, to suggest that this verse in any way supports the contention that "the church cannot err" is simply misusing this verse, either in total ignorance, or else to the point of dishonesty.
What the verse says is, God’s truth exists; it is the task of the entire church, by its behavior, to lift up the truth of God, to put it on display for the world to see, by their very behavior. The notion that this verse implies some form of “teaching authority” which cannot err is just plain dishonest.
For you Catholics, who are interested in claiming that Christ somehow supernaturally prevents the "teaching office" of the church from erring, stop and think about what that means for a moment. This verse doesn’t even say what you say it says, much less that it means what you say it means.
Rome is not what it says it is. I’ve spoofed this notion here, but it’s going to be important to deconstruct each of the various things it claims for itself in order to support my initial contention.
Catholic writers often cite 1 Tim 3:15 in support of indefectibility or infallibility of the church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church itself has made this interpretation an article of faith, most recently in Lumen Gentium 8:
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him…
My contention in this posting is that Rome’s official usage of this verse is wrong at best. But what’s worse is that in popular apologetics, Roman apologists are going far beyond what even Rome says in this verse.
One popular Catholic writer said this:
“As Saint Paul taught, the church is ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’ – she does not err. (1 Tim 3:15)”
But is that what Paul tried to say? Is that what he actually said?
It seems to me that for Catholics to try to force their meaning on this phrase is a fundamentally dishonest use of this language.
Daniel Wallace, a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, has written many textbooks on the Greek language. Here’s what he said:
“Before we can know what a particular text means we must know what it says.”
(From his essay, “Laying a Foundation: New Testament Textual Criticism in the work “Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis”.)
Let's look at the verse in a bit of context (ESV translation):
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
The NASB translation for this phrase is “the pillar and support of the truth.”
It’s important to note the word that gets translated by various translators as “mainstay” (the Vatican website translation), “buttress,” “support”. I’ve also seen “bulwark.”
It’s true that the phrase has the leadership of the church in mind (see Galatians 2). But they are called to “support” “the truth” not in terms of a “teaching authority,” but by their behavior (a notion that should, and does, lead directly into qualifications for elders)
Philip H. Towner, in his (2006) New International Commentary on the New Testament, says that “church of the living God” is not the key phrase, but “household” is. “The church” in Paul’s conception here is “a clarification,” a relative clause” for the truth that the universal church, all members of the church, really comprise “the household of the Living God.”
“Pillar” frequently describes the cloud of God’s presence (Exod 13:21-22; 14;24; 33:9; etc.), and stands metaphorically for leaders (Gal 2:9). In this case, where it combines with “foundation” and functions in respect to “the truth” (i.e. “the gospel”; see 2:3), the sense will be that of visible “support” such as the “pillar” lends to a building. The term translated “foundation” also signifies firmness and steadfastness. Together (perhaps in the sense “supporting foundation”) the two terms depict the church in the combative setting of heresy, as existing to provide a powerful and steadfast support for “the truth.”
LT Johnson, a Catholic commentator, works through the various phrases of this selection. First, of the “church of the Living God” here, the “ekklesia,” he notes that “household of God” is the prime metaphor, “not least because Paul’s instructions in 1 Timothy are directed to matters of public concern to the ekklesia, not to matters of domestic economy. That this assembly is one gathered by “the living God” is of first importance thematically (4:10, 5:6) and theologically, for it means that the church does not contain or control God, but is only in service to the one who moves always ahead of humans in surprising yet faithful ways.” Note also that the Catholic definition of "church" is not in view at all in that phrase. (Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, "The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary", Luke Timothy Johnson, p. 231).
The phrase he gives as “a pillar and support for the truth” are the Greek words “stylos kai hedraioma,” which he says are “architectural terms for ‘supports, stays, or pillars.”
The issue for the translator is not the meaning of the terms, but their referent. Are “pillar and support” to be read as in apposition to “church of the living God” or in delayed apposition to “how it is necessary to behave”? Such a delayed appositional phrase [already] appears elsewhere in the letter (1:7). It also makes better sense of the metaphorical point: the community is the oikos, and the members should behave so as to be supports and pillars for it. Such an understanding fits Paul’s other use of stylos for leaders of the Jerusalem community in Gal 2:9. Note also Paul’s use of the adjective hedraios in a plea to his unstable readers in Corinth: “Become steady people (hedraioi ginesthe), not capable of being moved, abounding in the work of the Lord at all times, knowing that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. (1 Cor 15:58). See also the use of stylos with reference to an individual person in Rev 3:12, which functions within the Temple symbolism of that writing.” (231-232)
In his New International Greek Testament Commentary, a commentary series which examines the Greek text, George Knight says it’s not doctrine that’s in view at all, it’s conduct. “So even though building terminology is utilized, since the conduct (of the individuals) in view relates to the interaction of the members of God’s family, modern translations have opted for “household” … The standards of conduct given “are no mere rules of etiquette, they are standards for the house/household that is none other than God’s. They provide directions for conduct in his temple, where he dwells by his Spirit, and they provide directions for relationships among his people.” (180). He says further that “Timothy and the church will conduct their lives appropriately if they remember that they are the home built and owned by God and indwelt by him as the living one, and also remember that they are called on to undergird and hold aloft God’s truth in word and deed.” (182)
Individual members of the household of God “support the truth” by bearing witness to it with their behavior. This is precisely Paul’s exhortation to the church in Romans 12:1-3:
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
Paul's illustration of the "church" is first that of a "household." The Vatican usage is wrong. As for the apologist’s comment to which I referred, to suggest that this verse in any way supports the contention that "the church cannot err" is simply misusing this verse, either in total ignorance, or else to the point of dishonesty.
What the verse says is, God’s truth exists; it is the task of the entire church, by its behavior, to lift up the truth of God, to put it on display for the world to see, by their very behavior. The notion that this verse implies some form of “teaching authority” which cannot err is just plain dishonest.
For you Catholics, who are interested in claiming that Christ somehow supernaturally prevents the "teaching office" of the church from erring, stop and think about what that means for a moment. This verse doesn’t even say what you say it says, much less that it means what you say it means.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Scott Windsor can't make up his mind
Scott Windsor says:
Anyway, while he's been avoiding the onus of submitting all of his work to the Magisterium (whom he apparently, carelessly equates with his local bishop) like the plague as well as blissfully ignoring the implications of receiving a brush-off from them, he's pursued the following line of argumentation over at his blog, and I'd like to know why.
He'd asked me to whom I'm submitted. I told him the elders of my church (my Southern Babdist church is elder-led). Follow the excerpts down the page.
SW: So, your answer is that you are submissive to the elders of your church - to whom do they submit to (sic)?
ME: My elders are in submission to the Holy Spirit Who expresses Himself thru the Word of God.
SW: I see, so your elders are their own little magisterium.
ME: My elders don't think they're infallible. They don't think they're descended directly via "apostolic succession" from Peter. They're not headed by a Pope who can speak ex cathedra whenever he feels like declaring something he said in the past at some point to have been an infallible statement, in retrospect. They are subject to Scripture and teach what it says. There are quite a few large differences. You should really know better, given how long you've been at this.
SW: That's sad, because in the Church which Jesus built, his bishops were indeed given the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose, and if it were bound on Earth, then it was also bound in Heaven. Since nothing fallible can logically be bound in Heaven, then this authority had to be infallible authority. Furthermore, this is part of what Jesus was sent to do (or else why do it?) and Jesus said "As the Father sent Me, I also send you." If the Apostles then did not pass on this authority which Jesus passed on to them - then they would have failed the Master right from the beginning. So the first bishops were given this infallible authority and by Jesus' Word, they too - being sent as He was sent - had to pass on this authority, which they did. So, if your elders were True Leaders of His Church, then they would have to have infallible authority, without it - they are just impostors, wolves dressed in sheeps clothing - to fool even the elect.
Me: So you admit that your original assertion was wrong - that my elders are their own little Magisterium. Good, we're getting somewhere. The decent thing to do would be to withdraw that statement, sir. (He didn't.)
SW: You brought up the non-infallibility of your elders, I responded that it was a pity, since Jesus established the True Church with "overseers" (bishops) who indeed had this authority.
Now, contrast that line of commentary with what he said most recently, quoted at the top. Which one is right? One can only wish Mr. Windsor could keep track of his arguments, to say nothing of my own.
You misrepresent the office of the bishop. Each office is NOT infallible in and of itself. They DO have apostolic authority to correct me if I have misrepresented Catholic teaching myself - but a single bishop has not the charism of infallibility, save the Bishop of Rome, and he utilizes that VERY judiciously.Well, yes, so judiciously as to be unrecognisable.
Anyway, while he's been avoiding the onus of submitting all of his work to the Magisterium (whom he apparently, carelessly equates with his local bishop) like the plague as well as blissfully ignoring the implications of receiving a brush-off from them, he's pursued the following line of argumentation over at his blog, and I'd like to know why.
He'd asked me to whom I'm submitted. I told him the elders of my church (my Southern Babdist church is elder-led). Follow the excerpts down the page.
SW: So, your answer is that you are submissive to the elders of your church - to whom do they submit to (sic)?
ME: My elders are in submission to the Holy Spirit Who expresses Himself thru the Word of God.
SW: I see, so your elders are their own little magisterium.
ME: My elders don't think they're infallible. They don't think they're descended directly via "apostolic succession" from Peter. They're not headed by a Pope who can speak ex cathedra whenever he feels like declaring something he said in the past at some point to have been an infallible statement, in retrospect. They are subject to Scripture and teach what it says. There are quite a few large differences. You should really know better, given how long you've been at this.
SW: That's sad, because in the Church which Jesus built, his bishops were indeed given the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose, and if it were bound on Earth, then it was also bound in Heaven. Since nothing fallible can logically be bound in Heaven, then this authority had to be infallible authority. Furthermore, this is part of what Jesus was sent to do (or else why do it?) and Jesus said "As the Father sent Me, I also send you." If the Apostles then did not pass on this authority which Jesus passed on to them - then they would have failed the Master right from the beginning. So the first bishops were given this infallible authority and by Jesus' Word, they too - being sent as He was sent - had to pass on this authority, which they did. So, if your elders were True Leaders of His Church, then they would have to have infallible authority, without it - they are just impostors, wolves dressed in sheeps clothing - to fool even the elect.
Me: So you admit that your original assertion was wrong - that my elders are their own little Magisterium. Good, we're getting somewhere. The decent thing to do would be to withdraw that statement, sir. (He didn't.)
SW: You brought up the non-infallibility of your elders, I responded that it was a pity, since Jesus established the True Church with "overseers" (bishops) who indeed had this authority.
Now, contrast that line of commentary with what he said most recently, quoted at the top. Which one is right? One can only wish Mr. Windsor could keep track of his arguments, to say nothing of my own.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Seen Scott Windsor's imprimatur?
Scott Windsor has responded to some of our recent interactions on his blog, in two parts. I'll address this first part here and then go on to the other post later.
It was YOU who referred to the Eph. 2 post
Yes, that's what's commonly called an "example". An "illustration". I apologise for using a concept that's apparently unfamiliar to you.
My question related to that post was very, very specific. You then responded to the Eph 2 post itself, which is not what I asked about. That is what I mean by your failure to follow the line of argumentation, and then you project your failure onto me and accuse me of shotgunning and partaking with Satan. Again, knock yourself out.
Since when does a "boldfaced word" indicate an internal critique? Boldfaced words mean emphasis.
Sigh. The bold word indicates a critique. If you weren't so busy acting offended, you might remember that I've already explained this to you.
-Here's the original comment from me.
-Mr Windsor's is right after, where he says: "Your use of "Romanist" in a truly bigoted fashion (related to another thread going on here and on my blog too as well as White's) is noted...but even make sure we take note by using bold text?"
-My next comment explains: "I put "from Romanists" in bold b/c I was trying to help you understand what I'd said. It appeared you hadn't followed that I was noting an inconsistency between what you'd said and what *other* ppl have said many times in the past."
-Mr Windsor ignores my explanation and offers this: "For example, if I were using a term like "Prottie" here - and someone expressed to ME that it was a bit of a bigoted term - I would respect them and refrain from further use - I would not go on and not only use it, but bold face it as well!"
-I responded in the next comment: "And again (see how boldface imparts emphasis?), I bolded "Romanist" to try to be helpful and direct attention to my meaning." And then I even explained it AGAIN: "Thus you are showing that you care not for the argument that *OTHER PEOPLE* have often made *IN THE PAST* here on this blog, that private, individual interpretation is useless. That is the extent of my point here."
-Mr Windsor seems finally to get it: "I can't speak for "*OTHER PEOPLE*" - but as for me, the only times I would have to be concerned about "private interpretation" is if I am interpreting something contrary to an already defined teaching"
If only you'd kept right on that train of thought, but no, it's apparently more amusing to vilify me. Whatever, have fun with that.
As I pointed out, there were at least 5 different topics among those 8 questions.
Yes, b/c YOU RESPONDED TO THE EPH 2 POST, Mr Windsor. Sauce for the goose and all that.
And there aren't 5 diff topics. They're all directed at taking your comment that "works" in Eph 2 refers to "works of the OT Law", so I was asking you if you attempt to fulfill the OT Law since Eph 2:10 says we're created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Since "works" = "works of the OT Law", it should be obvious to any reader that, if you believe that, you'd better get right on top of obeying the OT Law!
I note in passing that you've never put fwd any answer beyond "Christ fulfilled the OT Law for us"...as if you completely forgot the original context of the question - Eph 2. It's yet another thread of the argument you've lost track of, but I'll look at your other post on that topic.
Question 4 was asking about my sons (a personal question).
Seriously? Asking whether you fulfilled the circumcision commandments in the OT Law for your sons is "a personal question"?
5) Question 7 asked about graven images...which is wholly a different subject
Oh, the OT Law doesn't deal with graven images? Not even in, say, the 10 Commandments? Like the 2nd one?
Deut 7:5, 25, 12:3 29:17; Num 33:52; Lev 26:30? Aren't those psgs in the OT Law too?
Vague references to entire postings or entire threads of discussion don't cut it as documentation.
I told you where to see a couple of examples. You know, as an apologist you're not all that helpful. Don't you ever answer hypotheticals? It's not like it's not a specific hypothetical.
It sure sounds like St. Jerome was unilaterally acting in the quote you provided. Did he consult the elders of that congregation before acting? Or, did he just walk in and start ripping things down? Did he consult with the local bishop? Did he consult with ANYONE?
(You're shotgunning again, I note. I brought this up as an EXAMPLE, and you're taking it far afield, if we go by your own standard.)
Why would he consult the elders of a wrongdoing congregation?
Maybe he was very, very certain that such a thing was wrong and acted to communicate its wrongness to that church? Maybe he had consulted with the bishop. And wait a sec, why would he need to consult with the local bishop? I thought Christians and especially bishops throughout history have been in agreement about such important things as images. No doubt he agreed with you and knew his own bishop said images in church are a no-go, and thus figured the local bishop would agree, since bishops in Christ's church bind and loose and all that and have all that unity you like to talk about so often.
There may be some around, but I don't "use them" in "worship."
Let the reader judge whether the actions performed by RCs before their images is "using them" in "worship".
One can find SOME of the defined teachings of the RCC in many places. Others are said to be defined but are not. Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not, such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc.
But for the 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the other decry this individual interpretation if it differs from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's right here?
IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's really weird.
How about you actually exercise some of this humility you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?
Catholic apologists are used to help explain what the Magisterium ...REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic propaganda. (source)
And why precisely can't the Magisterium take care of that? The Pope? Is he too busy making official visits to Hugo Chávez and kissing Qur'ans to pitch in?
Anyway, the main point of this whole thing is that Mr Windsor apparently wants everyone to take his word for it on the question of whether he's submitted to the Magisterium. "Oh don't worry," he says, "I've written to my bishop, and in the past I've had good success getting a response." That's nice, and I'm sure such responses from men who wear such elaborate vestments and who hide and transfer pædophiles and can't decide what to do with obviously pro-baby-murder politicians among their constituents impart warm fuzzies, but from someone who's a little closer to the big-time than an anonymous race-baiting RC commenter like, say, Dozie, I'd like more than his assurance. I mean, I'm supposed to let RCC's dogmatic proclamations bind my conscience on pain of mortal sin (or, on pain of somehow wriggling out from under the virtual panacæa of the concept of "invincible ignorance"), but if Mr Windsor relies on his private interpretation to find out whether his own teachings are thus bound, I feel less motivated to do anything more than that.
It was YOU who referred to the Eph. 2 post
Yes, that's what's commonly called an "example". An "illustration". I apologise for using a concept that's apparently unfamiliar to you.
My question related to that post was very, very specific. You then responded to the Eph 2 post itself, which is not what I asked about. That is what I mean by your failure to follow the line of argumentation, and then you project your failure onto me and accuse me of shotgunning and partaking with Satan. Again, knock yourself out.
Since when does a "boldfaced word" indicate an internal critique? Boldfaced words mean emphasis.
Sigh. The bold word indicates a critique. If you weren't so busy acting offended, you might remember that I've already explained this to you.
-Here's the original comment from me.
-Mr Windsor's is right after, where he says: "Your use of "Romanist" in a truly bigoted fashion (related to another thread going on here and on my blog too as well as White's) is noted...but even make sure we take note by using bold text?"
-My next comment explains: "I put "from Romanists" in bold b/c I was trying to help you understand what I'd said. It appeared you hadn't followed that I was noting an inconsistency between what you'd said and what *other* ppl have said many times in the past."
-Mr Windsor ignores my explanation and offers this: "For example, if I were using a term like "Prottie" here - and someone expressed to ME that it was a bit of a bigoted term - I would respect them and refrain from further use - I would not go on and not only use it, but bold face it as well!"
-I responded in the next comment: "And again (see how boldface imparts emphasis?), I bolded "Romanist" to try to be helpful and direct attention to my meaning." And then I even explained it AGAIN: "Thus you are showing that you care not for the argument that *OTHER PEOPLE* have often made *IN THE PAST* here on this blog, that private, individual interpretation is useless. That is the extent of my point here."
-Mr Windsor seems finally to get it: "I can't speak for "*OTHER PEOPLE*" - but as for me, the only times I would have to be concerned about "private interpretation" is if I am interpreting something contrary to an already defined teaching"
If only you'd kept right on that train of thought, but no, it's apparently more amusing to vilify me. Whatever, have fun with that.
As I pointed out, there were at least 5 different topics among those 8 questions.
Yes, b/c YOU RESPONDED TO THE EPH 2 POST, Mr Windsor. Sauce for the goose and all that.
And there aren't 5 diff topics. They're all directed at taking your comment that "works" in Eph 2 refers to "works of the OT Law", so I was asking you if you attempt to fulfill the OT Law since Eph 2:10 says we're created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Since "works" = "works of the OT Law", it should be obvious to any reader that, if you believe that, you'd better get right on top of obeying the OT Law!
I note in passing that you've never put fwd any answer beyond "Christ fulfilled the OT Law for us"...as if you completely forgot the original context of the question - Eph 2. It's yet another thread of the argument you've lost track of, but I'll look at your other post on that topic.
Question 4 was asking about my sons (a personal question).
Seriously? Asking whether you fulfilled the circumcision commandments in the OT Law for your sons is "a personal question"?
5) Question 7 asked about graven images...which is wholly a different subject
Oh, the OT Law doesn't deal with graven images? Not even in, say, the 10 Commandments? Like the 2nd one?
Deut 7:5, 25, 12:3 29:17; Num 33:52; Lev 26:30? Aren't those psgs in the OT Law too?
Vague references to entire postings or entire threads of discussion don't cut it as documentation.
I told you where to see a couple of examples. You know, as an apologist you're not all that helpful. Don't you ever answer hypotheticals? It's not like it's not a specific hypothetical.
It sure sounds like St. Jerome was unilaterally acting in the quote you provided. Did he consult the elders of that congregation before acting? Or, did he just walk in and start ripping things down? Did he consult with the local bishop? Did he consult with ANYONE?
(You're shotgunning again, I note. I brought this up as an EXAMPLE, and you're taking it far afield, if we go by your own standard.)
Why would he consult the elders of a wrongdoing congregation?
Maybe he was very, very certain that such a thing was wrong and acted to communicate its wrongness to that church? Maybe he had consulted with the bishop. And wait a sec, why would he need to consult with the local bishop? I thought Christians and especially bishops throughout history have been in agreement about such important things as images. No doubt he agreed with you and knew his own bishop said images in church are a no-go, and thus figured the local bishop would agree, since bishops in Christ's church bind and loose and all that and have all that unity you like to talk about so often.
There may be some around, but I don't "use them" in "worship."
Let the reader judge whether the actions performed by RCs before their images is "using them" in "worship".
One can find SOME of the defined teachings of the RCC in many places. Others are said to be defined but are not. Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not, such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc.
But for the 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the other decry this individual interpretation if it differs from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's right here?
IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's really weird.
How about you actually exercise some of this humility you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?
Catholic apologists are used to help explain what the Magisterium ...REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic propaganda. (source)
And why precisely can't the Magisterium take care of that? The Pope? Is he too busy making official visits to Hugo Chávez and kissing Qur'ans to pitch in?
Anyway, the main point of this whole thing is that Mr Windsor apparently wants everyone to take his word for it on the question of whether he's submitted to the Magisterium. "Oh don't worry," he says, "I've written to my bishop, and in the past I've had good success getting a response." That's nice, and I'm sure such responses from men who wear such elaborate vestments and who hide and transfer pædophiles and can't decide what to do with obviously pro-baby-murder politicians among their constituents impart warm fuzzies, but from someone who's a little closer to the big-time than an anonymous race-baiting RC commenter like, say, Dozie, I'd like more than his assurance. I mean, I'm supposed to let RCC's dogmatic proclamations bind my conscience on pain of mortal sin (or, on pain of somehow wriggling out from under the virtual panacæa of the concept of "invincible ignorance"), but if Mr Windsor relies on his private interpretation to find out whether his own teachings are thus bound, I feel less motivated to do anything more than that.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Scott Windsor is cool with private interpretation. Why aren't you?
Mr Windsor, thanks for the time!
I just used the Eph 2 post as an example of what I was trying to bring out back at the Beggars All combox. Just to rundown for those who might not have read all that interaction...
Over here at BA, we make various arguments from the Bible against RC dogma. RCs come along and comment, and one of their principal arguments against our position is "That's just your private interpretation. We have an infallible interpreter, and so we can be sure that what the Magisterium says is the valid interp of the Bible, since she is the church founded by Christ and the gates of Hell won't prevail against her. Since you just have your private fallible interpretation, I don't need to pay attention to your contentions".
He was honest enough to admit, in the 02Nov post, that his apologetic blogging is not submitted to the RCC either (but that he will heretofore make his priest aware of it). I thanked him for his honesty and pointed out that the logical outworking of this fact is that he does not consider this common argument made by other RCs at various times in the past (I am unaware whether Mr Windsor has ever used this ridiculous argument) to be a valid one. I used the Eph 2 post as an example of that, asking Mr Windsor whether he would use that argument to overturn what I'd said in the 2007 post on Eph 2. It looks like the answer is mostly no, but I am a bit quizzical on Mr Windsor's request for specifics (see the end of his post).
Have you really never seen that argument used before? Not even once? Never listened to, for example, any of the many debates that James White has done with RCs over the years, wherein the RC apologists use that argument over and over?
Take a couple of examples, and please know that I am trying to be very specific in my question. I don't want to get into an extended debate on the subject matter itself, but rather on the principle of "he was only speaking as a private theologian/individual, not for the entire Church" nonsense.
"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)
"Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:25:6)
"These men [heretics], moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:24:5)
"the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images" - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 2:18)
"familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 5:5)
"Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:5)
We cite these as evidence against the RC contention that the church has been RCC throughout history. RCs most typically respond with "he was just speaking as a private theologian". Do you consider that a valid response? If so, why, since the question is what the Church has believed throughout history, and isn't that response simple special pleading? If not, can you explain the disunity and fragmentation that this disagreement displays in the ranks of RCC?
Now, on the other topic, your response to my contention with respect to Eph 2, since Paul goes on to mention circumcision, that means that v 10 - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" is a command to perform the works of the Law, correct? Why does not the RCC do so, then? When was the last time you offered a grain offering? Were your sons (if you have any) circumcised on the 8th day? How have you solved the problem that has long vexed the Jewish people, that you don't have a Temple in which to perform the sacrifices? Why isn't Yom Kippur a big, big deal on the RC calendar? Why is it OK (a propos) to bow down to graven images now even though Joshua wouldn't've permitted Jews to bow down to images of the dead (but no doubt sainted) Moses?
And could you please answer another of the original challenges? - our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone, in light of your statement No Catholic argues that works of the Law justify. It sounds like you are saying precisely that. Clarification would be appreciated.
I just used the Eph 2 post as an example of what I was trying to bring out back at the Beggars All combox. Just to rundown for those who might not have read all that interaction...
Over here at BA, we make various arguments from the Bible against RC dogma. RCs come along and comment, and one of their principal arguments against our position is "That's just your private interpretation. We have an infallible interpreter, and so we can be sure that what the Magisterium says is the valid interp of the Bible, since she is the church founded by Christ and the gates of Hell won't prevail against her. Since you just have your private fallible interpretation, I don't need to pay attention to your contentions".
He was honest enough to admit, in the 02Nov post, that his apologetic blogging is not submitted to the RCC either (but that he will heretofore make his priest aware of it). I thanked him for his honesty and pointed out that the logical outworking of this fact is that he does not consider this common argument made by other RCs at various times in the past (I am unaware whether Mr Windsor has ever used this ridiculous argument) to be a valid one. I used the Eph 2 post as an example of that, asking Mr Windsor whether he would use that argument to overturn what I'd said in the 2007 post on Eph 2. It looks like the answer is mostly no, but I am a bit quizzical on Mr Windsor's request for specifics (see the end of his post).
Have you really never seen that argument used before? Not even once? Never listened to, for example, any of the many debates that James White has done with RCs over the years, wherein the RC apologists use that argument over and over?
Take a couple of examples, and please know that I am trying to be very specific in my question. I don't want to get into an extended debate on the subject matter itself, but rather on the principle of "he was only speaking as a private theologian/individual, not for the entire Church" nonsense.
"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)
"Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:25:6)
"These men [heretics], moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:24:5)
"the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images" - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 2:18)
"familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 5:5)
"Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:5)
We cite these as evidence against the RC contention that the church has been RCC throughout history. RCs most typically respond with "he was just speaking as a private theologian". Do you consider that a valid response? If so, why, since the question is what the Church has believed throughout history, and isn't that response simple special pleading? If not, can you explain the disunity and fragmentation that this disagreement displays in the ranks of RCC?
Now, on the other topic, your response to my contention with respect to Eph 2, since Paul goes on to mention circumcision, that means that v 10 - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" is a command to perform the works of the Law, correct? Why does not the RCC do so, then? When was the last time you offered a grain offering? Were your sons (if you have any) circumcised on the 8th day? How have you solved the problem that has long vexed the Jewish people, that you don't have a Temple in which to perform the sacrifices? Why isn't Yom Kippur a big, big deal on the RC calendar? Why is it OK (a propos) to bow down to graven images now even though Joshua wouldn't've permitted Jews to bow down to images of the dead (but no doubt sainted) Moses?
And could you please answer another of the original challenges? - our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone, in light of your statement No Catholic argues that works of the Law justify. It sounds like you are saying precisely that. Clarification would be appreciated.
Monday, September 08, 2008
A Marian conversation
I recently exchanged a series of emails with a commenter who frequents our comboxes, of the Roman persuasion. This commenter shall remain nameless unless they should choose to identify him/herself in the combox.
We got around to discussing the Marian dogmas. For the benefit of the reader, I'll post here all the relevant text. I will omit nothing relevant, so whenever a response lacks, well, a response to a point previously brought up, it's because no argument was given. My statements will be in green, and the commenter's in burgundy.
Rhology: It makes me shake my head, really. What, precisely, is so disgusting about the marital act to you?
You make me shake my head.
---
Ah, so the angel's message to Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife"... is gone?
I'll confess - that's a new approach on me. You can have it.
---
Where is the "in other words" part? Where is it indicated in the text that the angel meant "do not fear to take her into your house" rather than "do not fear to take Mary as your wife"?
And is there a Magisterial, infallible interpretation of that passage somewhere? That's something I'd be interested in reading about. If you name one, don't forget to let me know where the document or statement that contains the interpretation is stated to be infallible.
---
-paralambano
I was referring to the "as your wife" part of the verse, not the "take".
-No doubt you're aware we're not sola scripturists?
Is this a concession that the Bible doesn't teach this doctrine?
-why would she even bother to ask the angel how she would conceive?
Um, because she was a virgin, not yet married?
-given the principle that Jesus kept the Law perfectly, we cannot accept that He would have violated the Law at His crucifixion by entrusting Mary's care to someone other than her remaining children, as you maintain James, Joses, et al were. Jesus could not have given her to St. John, which He did.
1) This must be more of this invisible Magisterium Bible interpretation again. Where does He entrust her to John's care? He says "behold your mother; behold your son". Not "behold your mother, forget the one who actually bore you, OK? Behold your son, 'cause those other guys are a bunch of louts".
2) Even if He did do what you say, then what stupendous Magisterial leap do you then take to get from John to the church? I thought Peter represents the church most of the time... Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?
-Pope St. Siricius' letter "Accepi litteras vestras,"
And you know it's infallible, how? Is the proclamation that declared it infallible itself infallible? How do you know? Where was it said, infallibly, that Councils are infallible when ratified by the Pope? Do you know that infallibly?
-Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. Liturgy
I've been down that road before. None of those are infallible. I wouldn't want to be led astray by individual, private interpretation, you know.
---
-"As your wife" is a function of "take
"Take" can be used in a variety of forms. "As your wife" is the modifier.
So what you're saying is that Joseph did NOT take her as his wife. He disobeyed the angel.
-'And from that day he took her into his own home.'
And John represents the church here, how?
And you're sure that the brothers of the Lord were believers at this time, how?
And the command to John transmits to you today, how?
-We are taught that they were infallible and princes of the Church, Peter chief among them.
That's not what I asked.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold up the horses.
Sounds like you're citing private, individual interpretation of Acts 15 and Titus 2.
Where is the council at Jerusalem from Acts 15 defined infallibly as infallible in an infallible proclamation of the Roman church? How do you know it's infallible?
Ditto for the Titus 2. I'm going to need you to cite all that stuff whenever you want to quote Scr, OK?
-In fact, you would do better to read Aquinas and Gilson, Maritain, Clarke and others on Aquinas for a far superior presentation of the epistemic certitude you're questioning.
It would behoove your position, then, to make sense and not retreat into infinite regress at the slightest provocation. Solve that first before you lecture me. After all, it's what the Church has bound upon you - you might as well bear the burden with intellectual honesty. Or convert.
---
Joseph took her "as his wife," as in, "as if she was his wife." I've already said this. He didn't disobey the angel, he obeyed perfectly. He did so in order to protect the Lord in the womb and Mary from what would have been correctly perceived as a violation of the Law.
---
Where does the text say "as if she was his wife"?
Or is that, once again, a private fallible interpretation from you?
It ended there, with the commenter declining to respond. Of course, it's open to continuation anytime. Hopefully this conversation has been of benefit. It was to me.
We got around to discussing the Marian dogmas. For the benefit of the reader, I'll post here all the relevant text. I will omit nothing relevant, so whenever a response lacks, well, a response to a point previously brought up, it's because no argument was given. My statements will be in green, and the commenter's in burgundy.
Rhology: It makes me shake my head, really. What, precisely, is so disgusting about the marital act to you?
Commenter: There isn't anything disgusting about the marital act or about the words "penis" or "vagina." That's what you people are asserting, but there's nothing improper about either of them. It shows a depraved mindset to consider them offensive. They're part of God's wonderful creation, and there is every propriety in people who are legitimately married using them for the procreative act in keeping with 1 Cor. 7 and Hebrews 13. Neither is there anything inappropriate with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:34, "And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit." This is just exactly what the Church teaches: Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, remained betrothed to him, but did not complete the marriage so she could remain holy in body and spirit, and so she could be totally devoted to Jesus' care and upbringing, so as to be "free from [worldly anxieties," but instead "anxious about the things of the Lord."
---
Ah, so the angel's message to Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife"... is gone?
I'll confess - that's a new approach on me. You can have it.
---
In other words, do not fear to take her into your house, don't put her away quietly as you thought to do, because she'll be stoned under Mosaic law if you do...
I'll keep it, too. It's the true one.
---Where is the "in other words" part? Where is it indicated in the text that the angel meant "do not fear to take her into your house" rather than "do not fear to take Mary as your wife"?
And is there a Magisterial, infallible interpretation of that passage somewhere? That's something I'd be interested in reading about. If you name one, don't forget to let me know where the document or statement that contains the interpretation is stated to be infallible.
---
No doubt you're aware we're not sola scripturists? Be that as it may, I would encourage you to investigate the full semantic range of paralambano in Matthew 1:20. There is no necessity to render it as meaning that Joseph has to literally "take" Mary in the consummatory sense. In fact, the metaphysical definition Strong's gives ("1. to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be, 2. not to reject, not to withhold obedience") makes perfect sense given the totality of circumstances.
Consider also Luke 1:26-38. If Mary (whom we both acknowledge was "betrothed" to Joseph) understands the natural order of conception (and she clearly does), why would she even bother to ask the angel how she would conceive? She would, if your paradigm were correct, have understood this saying from the angel perfectly well: she would have marital relations with Joseph, who was to become her husband. But she knew this was not going to happen, which is why she asked the question. There isn't any reasonable alternative answer.
Furthermore, given the principle that Jesus kept the Law perfectly, we cannot accept that He would have violated the Law at His crucifixion by entrusting Mary's care to someone other than her remaining children, as you maintain James, Joses, et al were. Jesus could not have given her to St. John, which He did.
I would refer you also to Pope St. Siricius' letter "Accepi litteras vestras," c. 362, which was accepted and propounded by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, I believe. (It may have been Chalcedon, I'm working from memory.) Ecumenical Councils render the appelation "Ever Virgin" to Mary as well, and in the course of their dogmatic teaching. These councils were properly ratified by Popes, and there is thus no question as to their infallibility. By necessity, then, these and others are infallible interpretations in a negative sense concerning the sense of Matthew 1:20 you mentioned. It is simply not necessary for them to explicitly state the interpretation; just as if I make a statement "It has not rained all week long, there hasn't been a drop,"
I don't need to explicitly state, "And let me make myself clear: when the weatherman said 'don't forget your umbrella,' he was lying." The weatherman wasn't lying. And I don't need to explicitly "refute" him when the meaning doesn't require me to have taken his words as directly contradictory.
If you desire more about Magisterial pronouncements concerning Mary's perpetual virginity, I'm sure you can borrow a copy of Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. See pp 203-207 in Ott and all the references listed in the Symbolic Index ection VIII, i in Denzinger. Lateran Council, Popes, Saints (Augustine, Irenaeus, Ignatius, et al.), Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. all maintain it.
If you desire more about Magisterial pronouncements concerning Mary's perpetual virginity, I'm sure you can borrow a copy of Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. See pp 203-207 in Ott and all the references listed in the Symbolic Index ection VIII, i in Denzinger. Lateran Council, Popes, Saints (Augustine, Irenaeus, Ignatius, et al.), Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. all maintain it.
Another source equally authoritative for us is the Liturgy, of course. I don't expect you to understand or accept that, but if and when you begin to explore liturgics and the history of the Mass and so forth, you'll get a better grasp on why I mention it.
----paralambano
I was referring to the "as your wife" part of the verse, not the "take".
-No doubt you're aware we're not sola scripturists?
Is this a concession that the Bible doesn't teach this doctrine?
-why would she even bother to ask the angel how she would conceive?
Um, because she was a virgin, not yet married?
-given the principle that Jesus kept the Law perfectly, we cannot accept that He would have violated the Law at His crucifixion by entrusting Mary's care to someone other than her remaining children, as you maintain James, Joses, et al were. Jesus could not have given her to St. John, which He did.
1) This must be more of this invisible Magisterium Bible interpretation again. Where does He entrust her to John's care? He says "behold your mother; behold your son". Not "behold your mother, forget the one who actually bore you, OK? Behold your son, 'cause those other guys are a bunch of louts".
2) Even if He did do what you say, then what stupendous Magisterial leap do you then take to get from John to the church? I thought Peter represents the church most of the time... Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?
-Pope St. Siricius' letter "Accepi litteras vestras,"
And you know it's infallible, how? Is the proclamation that declared it infallible itself infallible? How do you know? Where was it said, infallibly, that Councils are infallible when ratified by the Pope? Do you know that infallibly?
-Ott's Fundamentals or Denzinger's Sources. Liturgy
I've been down that road before. None of those are infallible. I wouldn't want to be led astray by individual, private interpretation, you know.
---
"As your wife" is a function of "take; hence, you need to articulate how it is that we must render "paralambano" as "take in the consummatory fashion." You cannot do so.
"Um, etc."
But, as I pointed out, your position is that she knew she wasn't going to remain a virgin. The angel didn't say to her "You've already conceived." He said "you will conceive." She, according to your position, would have clearly understood that to mean in the eventual course of her marriage to Joseph. Think about it.
"Where does He entrust her to John's care?"
'And from that day he took her into his own home.' Read a little, man.
"2) Even if He did do what you say, then what stupendous Magisterial leap do you then take to get from John to the church? I thought Peter represents the church most of the time... Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?"
The Apostles do. They were, um, Apostles. We are taught that they were infallible and princes of the Church, Peter chief among them. You're grasping at straws, Alan.
"And you know it's infallible, how?"
Because it was propounded by the E.C., as I said. And we know the E.C.s are infallible because they are following the Scriptural precedent in Acts 15, and we know they have "all authority" as Apostolic successors from Titus 2, etc. I'll email you when my series is complete and give you the URL. You would do well to read a lot of my prefatory posts concerning epistemology and certainty, as well. In fact, you would do better to read Aquinas and Gilson, Maritain, Clarke and others on Aquinas for a far superior presentation of the epistemic certitude you're questioning.
----"As your wife" is a function of "take
"Take" can be used in a variety of forms. "As your wife" is the modifier.
So what you're saying is that Joseph did NOT take her as his wife. He disobeyed the angel.
-'And from that day he took her into his own home.'
And John represents the church here, how?
And you're sure that the brothers of the Lord were believers at this time, how?
And the command to John transmits to you today, how?
-We are taught that they were infallible and princes of the Church, Peter chief among them.
That's not what I asked.
Do you get to switch out apostles only when it suits your purposes, or does anyone get to play, at any time?
-And we know the E.C.s are infallible because they are following the Scriptural precedent in Acts 15, and we know they have "all authority" as Apostolic successors from Titus 2, etc.Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold up the horses.
Sounds like you're citing private, individual interpretation of Acts 15 and Titus 2.
Where is the council at Jerusalem from Acts 15 defined infallibly as infallible in an infallible proclamation of the Roman church? How do you know it's infallible?
Ditto for the Titus 2. I'm going to need you to cite all that stuff whenever you want to quote Scr, OK?
-In fact, you would do better to read Aquinas and Gilson, Maritain, Clarke and others on Aquinas for a far superior presentation of the epistemic certitude you're questioning.
It would behoove your position, then, to make sense and not retreat into infinite regress at the slightest provocation. Solve that first before you lecture me. After all, it's what the Church has bound upon you - you might as well bear the burden with intellectual honesty. Or convert.
---
Joseph took her "as his wife," as in, "as if she was his wife." I've already said this. He didn't disobey the angel, he obeyed perfectly. He did so in order to protect the Lord in the womb and Mary from what would have been correctly perceived as a violation of the Law.
---
Where does the text say "as if she was his wife"?
Or is that, once again, a private fallible interpretation from you?
It ended there, with the commenter declining to respond. Of course, it's open to continuation anytime. Hopefully this conversation has been of benefit. It was to me.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
4 questions
Given the recent discussions surrounding the infallibility of the Roman Magisterium, I have 4 questions to help further mutual understanding.
1) Please name one, just one, Bible verse that the Roman Magisterium has infallibly interpreted.
2) Please state how you know the answer to #1. (Edit: I want to know the source for your answer and how you know that particular proclamation is infallible.)
3) Please explain whether the answer to #2 is infallible.
4) Please explain if you know the answer to #2 infallibly.
Thanks!
1) Please name one, just one, Bible verse that the Roman Magisterium has infallibly interpreted.
2) Please state how you know the answer to #1. (Edit: I want to know the source for your answer and how you know that particular proclamation is infallible.)
3) Please explain whether the answer to #2 is infallible.
4) Please explain if you know the answer to #2 infallibly.
Thanks!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Magisterial snobbery
Alexander Greco has graced us with an exposition of the worth of the Magisterium.
He apparently can't tell when I am engaging his position on its own grounds. He and Dozie continually attribute the logical conclusions of the Roman position to my own.
Reading this post would do them some good.
Being aware that their understanding of my philosophy was flawed, I began to clarify my philosophy by both narrowly defining certain principles and outright condemning others on an ad hoc basis.
Holy Spirit's job, sometimes working thru people, sometimes not.
Surely after I have "Greco's Philosophy for Dummies" published there will still be people who just do not get it; however, there are those who would.
Correct. And presumably, one would not find, in a work on Greco's philosophy, absolutely nothing on a topic (say, the Assumption of the BVM or the Immaculate Conc) but go ahead and say it's there anyway, and then have you come and affirm that it really is there.
Or...maybe it WOULD happen like that.
Would I totally eradicate misunderstanding? Of course not!
So what you're saying is, it's not the Bible's fault if people misunderstand. Thank you - that is my point exactly.
if he were to do that, then why would he have allowed us to become sinners to begin with?).
Maybe b/c He has a perfect plan that you, as a limited human, don't fully understand.
I refuse to let someone get away with the argument-equivalent of putting God in the dock. You don't get to judge His plan. You are to submit to it.
You emphasis the erroneous straw man idea that the individual must know infallibly, or have infallible knowledge in order to have certainty regardless of the amount of clarification given to them
Actually, that would be you and Dozie who emphasise that very thing.
Have you not considered that certainty can be a gradual process?
Sure. But how does that leave a Magisterium-based epistemology in better position than Sola Scrip?
how does this take away from the objective value in an infallible Magisterium?
B/c the very grounds you use to criticise Sola Scrip - that people don't understand it, people misinterp it, people end up in disunity, people end up disagreeing - you've just admitted are the case or could be the case for your own position. But have you not considered that certainty can be a gradual process?
Can the Bible actively tell you when you have erroneously derived false doctrines?
The Holy Spirit does. This is not that hard, seriously.
you might claim that it could, by reading Scripture within context and exegetically.
1) That's part of what the HS uses to bring us into understanding.
2) You have to do that with Magisterial proclamations, the same as the Scr. Yet somehow Magisterial documents are better, more sure, have better communicative ability.
Could the Holy Spirit guided Church actively tell you when you have erroneously derived false doctrines?
Happens all the time. What do you think excommunication is for?
What do you think 2 Tim 3:15-17 and the surrounding context are talking about? Or 1 Tim 3:15, for that matter? An infallible Magisterium is not required to accomplish that!
Yes as evidenced in history.
And history also evidences loads of Church screw-ups.
See, on the one hand you say "the Church" will serve as the always-good guide. Yet the Church is made of people, and people, by your own admission, "are complex animals who contain the rational faculty, but due to other factors they do not always make the best use of this faculty". which is it?
Mind you that the Bible is only acting passively, dependent upon you to find the correct meaning.
Thank God for providing His Holy Spirit, for not leaving us alone.
You continue to strawman the Sola Scrip position. Is it really that hard to learn?
It cannot stop you and say, “Hey, you are not reading me correctly.”
Paul never does that in Romans 6? Mark never does it in Mark 7? The Psalm 119 Psalter didn't think the HS can, thru the Scripture?
You might claim that another believer could stop and correct you. However, you are still left with their possible erroneous beliefs which influence their reading of the text.
1) That's one reason why the church is there. God uses means to accomplish His will, you know.
2) If you are reading a Church document in error, you might claim that another believer, even a priest, could stop and correct you. However, you are still left with their possible erroneous beliefs which influence their reading of the text. when's the last time you received direct correspondence from the Magisterium? Could you scan the letter and post it somewhere, in photobucket? What did you ask them? What did they say?
On the other hand, when the Holy Spirit-guided Magisterium steps in to correct you via infallible proclamations, their corrections are infallible (when proclaimed to be)
When was the last time an infallible correction was made?
Then, when was it proclaimed to be?
Does the Magisterium ever make fallible proclamations?
How do you know the difference?
How do you know the difference infallibly? If you don't know it infallibly, does it matter whether you know the difference infallibly? What is the difference, if not, between that situation and a believer reading the Scr?
So the Protestant has his fallible teacher and fallible self, and the Catholic has his infallible teacher and fallible self.
The Sola Scripturist's teachers are the Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
John 6:45 - "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."
1 John 2:27 - As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
Jeremiah 31:34 - "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
The church's job, biblically, is to teach the Scr to believers and call out sin, etc.
The source is infallible. The guide is infallible. The individual teacher is fallible.
Contrast that with the Roman system, on the Roman position.
The Scr is (supposedly) infallible (though that depends on which Romanist you ask).
The Magisterium can be infallible, when it 'wants' to be.
The individual reader of a Magisterial/papal infallible proclamation and/or the priest who teaches it, expounds on it, and answers questions about it to his congregation is fallible.
Tell me again where the advantage is? At least with the Sola Scrip position, we KNOW that the Scr is infallible. We apparently can't know the Scr is infallible, and we certainly can't know when the Magisterium is speaking infallibly, on the Roman position.
(Edits in green, for clarification's sake - see Alexander Greco's first comment)
He apparently can't tell when I am engaging his position on its own grounds. He and Dozie continually attribute the logical conclusions of the Roman position to my own.
Reading this post would do them some good.
Being aware that their understanding of my philosophy was flawed, I began to clarify my philosophy by both narrowly defining certain principles and outright condemning others on an ad hoc basis.
Holy Spirit's job, sometimes working thru people, sometimes not.
Surely after I have "Greco's Philosophy for Dummies" published there will still be people who just do not get it; however, there are those who would.
Correct. And presumably, one would not find, in a work on Greco's philosophy, absolutely nothing on a topic (say, the Assumption of the BVM or the Immaculate Conc) but go ahead and say it's there anyway, and then have you come and affirm that it really is there.
Or...maybe it WOULD happen like that.
Would I totally eradicate misunderstanding? Of course not!
So what you're saying is, it's not the Bible's fault if people misunderstand. Thank you - that is my point exactly.
if he were to do that, then why would he have allowed us to become sinners to begin with?).
Maybe b/c He has a perfect plan that you, as a limited human, don't fully understand.
I refuse to let someone get away with the argument-equivalent of putting God in the dock. You don't get to judge His plan. You are to submit to it.
You emphasis the erroneous straw man idea that the individual must know infallibly, or have infallible knowledge in order to have certainty regardless of the amount of clarification given to them
Actually, that would be you and Dozie who emphasise that very thing.
Have you not considered that certainty can be a gradual process?
Sure. But how does that leave a Magisterium-based epistemology in better position than Sola Scrip?
how does this take away from the objective value in an infallible Magisterium?
B/c the very grounds you use to criticise Sola Scrip - that people don't understand it, people misinterp it, people end up in disunity, people end up disagreeing - you've just admitted are the case or could be the case for your own position. But have you not considered that certainty can be a gradual process?
Can the Bible actively tell you when you have erroneously derived false doctrines?
The Holy Spirit does. This is not that hard, seriously.
you might claim that it could, by reading Scripture within context and exegetically.
1) That's part of what the HS uses to bring us into understanding.
2) You have to do that with Magisterial proclamations, the same as the Scr. Yet somehow Magisterial documents are better, more sure, have better communicative ability.
Could the Holy Spirit guided Church actively tell you when you have erroneously derived false doctrines?
Happens all the time. What do you think excommunication is for?
What do you think 2 Tim 3:15-17 and the surrounding context are talking about? Or 1 Tim 3:15, for that matter? An infallible Magisterium is not required to accomplish that!
Yes as evidenced in history.
And history also evidences loads of Church screw-ups.
See, on the one hand you say "the Church" will serve as the always-good guide. Yet the Church is made of people, and people, by your own admission, "are complex animals who contain the rational faculty, but due to other factors they do not always make the best use of this faculty". which is it?
Mind you that the Bible is only acting passively, dependent upon you to find the correct meaning.
Thank God for providing His Holy Spirit, for not leaving us alone.
You continue to strawman the Sola Scrip position. Is it really that hard to learn?
It cannot stop you and say, “Hey, you are not reading me correctly.”
Paul never does that in Romans 6? Mark never does it in Mark 7? The Psalm 119 Psalter didn't think the HS can, thru the Scripture?
You might claim that another believer could stop and correct you. However, you are still left with their possible erroneous beliefs which influence their reading of the text.
1) That's one reason why the church is there. God uses means to accomplish His will, you know.
2) If you are reading a Church document in error, you might claim that another believer, even a priest, could stop and correct you. However, you are still left with their possible erroneous beliefs which influence their reading of the text. when's the last time you received direct correspondence from the Magisterium? Could you scan the letter and post it somewhere, in photobucket? What did you ask them? What did they say?
On the other hand, when the Holy Spirit-guided Magisterium steps in to correct you via infallible proclamations, their corrections are infallible (when proclaimed to be)
When was the last time an infallible correction was made?
Then, when was it proclaimed to be?
Does the Magisterium ever make fallible proclamations?
How do you know the difference?
How do you know the difference infallibly? If you don't know it infallibly, does it matter whether you know the difference infallibly? What is the difference, if not, between that situation and a believer reading the Scr?
So the Protestant has his fallible teacher and fallible self, and the Catholic has his infallible teacher and fallible self.
The Sola Scripturist's teachers are the Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
John 6:45 - "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."
1 John 2:27 - As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
Jeremiah 31:34 - "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
The church's job, biblically, is to teach the Scr to believers and call out sin, etc.
The source is infallible. The guide is infallible. The individual teacher is fallible.
Contrast that with the Roman system, on the Roman position.
The Scr is (supposedly) infallible (though that depends on which Romanist you ask).
The Magisterium can be infallible, when it 'wants' to be.
The individual reader of a Magisterial/papal infallible proclamation and/or the priest who teaches it, expounds on it, and answers questions about it to his congregation is fallible.
Tell me again where the advantage is? At least with the Sola Scrip position, we KNOW that the Scr is infallible. We apparently can't know the Scr is infallible, and we certainly can't know when the Magisterium is speaking infallibly, on the Roman position.
(Edits in green, for clarification's sake - see Alexander Greco's first comment)
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Rarely Infallible
"The world sees the public side of Pope Benedict XVI generally at big ceremonial events in Rome or on foreign travels, when he's under the glare of the media.
But over the last three years, the "real Benedict" has emerged most fully in a series of semiprivate encounters with an audience he feels at home with -- groups of priests.
...What distinguishes these encounters is that the pope obviously feels he is speaking as a priest among priests, not an authority figure doing an obligatory drop-by.
During his first summer meeting with priests in 2005, he told his audience: "I also want to say that the pope is not an oracle, that he is infallible in only the rarest of situations, as we know." That's a point the pope has made more than once as a preface to his responses; he's there to provide reflection and some guidance, not prefabricated answers to pastoral dilemmas." Catholic News
But over the last three years, the "real Benedict" has emerged most fully in a series of semiprivate encounters with an audience he feels at home with -- groups of priests.
...What distinguishes these encounters is that the pope obviously feels he is speaking as a priest among priests, not an authority figure doing an obligatory drop-by.
During his first summer meeting with priests in 2005, he told his audience: "I also want to say that the pope is not an oracle, that he is infallible in only the rarest of situations, as we know." That's a point the pope has made more than once as a preface to his responses; he's there to provide reflection and some guidance, not prefabricated answers to pastoral dilemmas." Catholic News
Thursday, July 03, 2008
5 questions for James
James (the Romanist one),
At least James (the Reformed one) called you THE Champion, rather than acting as if that were your given name, so that's something.
I'd like to ask five questions on this issue of Luther questioning the Canon before Trent and Robert Sungenis' response to your question thereon.
1) Who is right - you or Sungenis?
2) How do you know that?
3) Has the Magisterium pronounced on this?
4) If so, were you imbued with infallibility when you read their statement? / If not, is there any way to be sure who's right since there's no infallible judgment on the matter?
5) Since this is a theological matter - ie, how to treat Luther who was either a heretic or not a heretic for "questioning" the Canon before Trent - can you give me a reason to accept this as a matter of ignorance and/or misjudgment on the part of the party who was wrong (either you or Sungenis) vs an example of disunity within the Roman church?
Thanks!
At least James (the Reformed one) called you THE Champion, rather than acting as if that were your given name, so that's something.
I'd like to ask five questions on this issue of Luther questioning the Canon before Trent and Robert Sungenis' response to your question thereon.
1) Who is right - you or Sungenis?
2) How do you know that?
3) Has the Magisterium pronounced on this?
4) If so, were you imbued with infallibility when you read their statement? / If not, is there any way to be sure who's right since there's no infallible judgment on the matter?
5) Since this is a theological matter - ie, how to treat Luther who was either a heretic or not a heretic for "questioning" the Canon before Trent - can you give me a reason to accept this as a matter of ignorance and/or misjudgment on the part of the party who was wrong (either you or Sungenis) vs an example of disunity within the Roman church?
Thanks!
Sunday, April 27, 2008
"they mean at least this much."
I ventured over to a discussion board (something I haven't done in a while), and noticed the following question:
"What is the official RCC teaching on the verses I bolded? Can you show me something from an official catholic document."
This is asking for something Roman apologists cannot give you. Just this month, Jimmy Akin, one of the main hosts of Catholic Answers admitted the Roman Church can't give you an infallible, official interpretation of exactly what any particular Bible verse means. The Roman Church, according to Akin, can only tell you, in some instances a Bible verse "mean[s] at least this much."The clip can be found here , or in the imbedded audio player below:
"What is the official RCC teaching on the verses I bolded? Can you show me something from an official catholic document."
This is asking for something Roman apologists cannot give you. Just this month, Jimmy Akin, one of the main hosts of Catholic Answers admitted the Roman Church can't give you an infallible, official interpretation of exactly what any particular Bible verse means. The Roman Church, according to Akin, can only tell you, in some instances a Bible verse "mean[s] at least this much."The clip can be found here , or in the imbedded audio player below:
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
You can take the Catholic out of the Church...
11Like a dog that returns to his vomit
is a fool who repeats his folly.
12Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
Listening to Gerry Matatics on Iron Sharpens Iron today made me laugh at one point in particular, when host Chris Arnzen asked him this question (around minute 38):
(Your mainstream Catholic friends may say): You are acting as a Prot, certainly your Gospel is not Protestant and your sacraments and so on are not Protestant, but in you standing in defiance of bishops and a Pope, you are merely relying on private interpretation and so on, if you could comment on that.
Here is Matatics' response (as I have transcribed it):
Absolutely, no, the... the argument is totally fallacious, the claim is totally false and falls to the ground. I don't depend upon my private interpretation of Scripture, tradition, or anything the Mag has taught. I rely upon what the Catholic Church herself, the pillar and foundation of the truth, as St Paul calls the church in 1 Tim 3:15, has faithfully taught down thru the years. That teaching is clear, it is capable of being understood, or there's no point in having a teaching church. And it's very clear when we look at that church's teaching, for example, that what Luther was teaching at, uh, during his "Reformation", what John Calvin was teaching, what other Protestant "Reformers" were teaching about the fact that we can be justified by faith alone, is a heresy. No one could read the documents of the Council of Trent which met, you know, in the 1500s to address the errors of Luther, and come away thinking, "Gee, I'm a little confused. Is Luther a good guy or a bad guy? Is Calvin correct or incorrect?" It's very unambiguous that what these men are teaching is a heresy that is contrary to Scripture... so that's very clear, that the Catholic Church has always condemned Protestantism... so the Protestant here, Chris, is not Gerry Matatics, it's the guy who would follow Ratzinger. Ratzinger says in his book Principles of Catholic Theology that Protestantism is not heresy. So if somebody wants to look around for who are the Catholicss who are really Protestants masquerading as Catholics, it is the followers of Vatican 2. Vatican 2 teaches a Protestantised version....I say, Vat 2 teaches that Protestants do not need to convert to Catholicism in order to enter the one true church and in order to save their eternal souls.(emphasis and quotations his)
I love it. Here Arnzen does us the favor of reflecting back on a Romanist the same question that so many Roman apologists (and indeed, Matatics himself in the past) LOVE to pose to Protestants - "Isn't _____ just your private interpretation, though? Don't we need an infallible interpreter to inform us of the true interpretation so that we will not fall into the disunity of multiple 10s of 1000s of denominations as we've seen in Protestantism?"
Listen to Matatics' response! All he does is answer in the same way as Protestants sometimes do - no, the teaching of the church is totally sufficiently clear, it is wholly adequate to communicate the truth of God. The teachings of the Council of Trent are easily understood.
Herein lies the blasphemy implicit in this kind of question. Church Fathers, papal encyclicals, conciliar decrees, etc are clearer than Scripture. God apparently is unable or unwilling to make His revelation clear enough in the Scripture, but He gets it right or chooses to make it happen later on, in the teachings of the Church throughout history.
Such pitiful arguments have been answered over and over again, notably here and less notably here among countless other places. What I love most about this is to see the infighting among the "unified" Romanists, and a Roman apologist getting a taste of his own medicine.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Uncertainty of Infallibility
The lack of a list of infallible teachings by the RCC has been discussed here previously. We are often told by RC e-pologists that we Protestants suffer from uncertainty in faith and morals due to the lack of an infallible organization to lead us, yet RCs cannot even define their own body of infallible doctrine. Additionally, a few weeks ago I posted on my own blog about an old dispute (in the Catholic community) over whether or not a particular papal decree by JPII was actually infallible. Ironically, the confusion was bore out in the comments section where it was clear two Catholic commenters were still in disagreement over what exactly made the declaration infallible (although I think they may have figured it out eventually).
The comments in James’ previous post on the authorship of the Book of Hebrews has flushed out another interesting principle in regard to infallibility. It appears that not all portions of conciliar decisions and papal statements are infallible. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
"But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision."
The illusion of certainty in the RC position is quickly disappearing.
First, one must determine what documents and decrees could be considered infallible. Second, one must determine exactly what is or is not infallible within those documents/decrees. Is the determination of the above made fallibly or infallibly? And by whom is such a determination made?
(Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that a believer should know what is infallible before giving assent but we have yet to see an RC who can produce a list of all infallible statements. How can one assent to infallible doctrines that they can't clearly define?)
Friday, October 19, 2007
The Pope's email address
The Pontificator said:
and then
This raises some questions in my mind, which are all serious questions, not rhetorical:
1) How do I know you're not getting it wrong?
2) Why doesn't your priest blog for you?
3) Come to think of it, why doesn't the Magisterium take care of this kind of thing so as to make sure RC dogma doesn't go astray?
4) Can you make the obvious connection between:
Magisterial teaching VS how it is represented by individual RCs
and
Biblical teaching VS how it is represented by individual Prots ?
Then he says:
How about by the Magisterium? Why not by them?
And if by them, will you tell me with a straight face that you have a way to communicate with one or more members thereof? If so, how? Email? Telephone?
I guess I'm asking, echoing Steve Hays, why those of our RC readers who object to things we say here don't take those things to their priest in order to make sure we here at the blog can get the Magisterial answer to stuff. Why don't the Pope and/or Magisterium do their own apologetics?
It does not surprise me in the least that individual Catholics, especially if they have not studied the matter in depth, will get one or more of the particulars wrong.
and then
I took the liberty of correcting David because I happen to know more about the Catholic view of justification than a lot of folks.
This raises some questions in my mind, which are all serious questions, not rhetorical:
1) How do I know you're not getting it wrong?
2) Why doesn't your priest blog for you?
3) Come to think of it, why doesn't the Magisterium take care of this kind of thing so as to make sure RC dogma doesn't go astray?
4) Can you make the obvious connection between:
Magisterial teaching VS how it is represented by individual RCs
and
Biblical teaching VS how it is represented by individual Prots ?
Then he says:
But my opinions still remain my opinions and are subject to correction by Catholics who know more than I.
How about by the Magisterium? Why not by them?
And if by them, will you tell me with a straight face that you have a way to communicate with one or more members thereof? If so, how? Email? Telephone?
I guess I'm asking, echoing Steve Hays, why those of our RC readers who object to things we say here don't take those things to their priest in order to make sure we here at the blog can get the Magisterial answer to stuff. Why don't the Pope and/or Magisterium do their own apologetics?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
