Posted on 07/28/2006 6:45:14 PM PDT by sionnsar
Unfortunately, that is simply not correct. A few years ago I was visiting my Bro-in-law in Santa Barbara, California. On that Saturday morning there was a two page spread in the paper about an organization housed at the mission there, whose basic tenet was that Mary was indeed divine, and was co-redeemer, and they were making as much noise as they could (with the help of the local rag) and petitioning pope John-Paul to make such a declaration.
Catholics that are properly practicing Catholicism do not view Mary as divine. Did Pope John Paul II make this declaration? No he did not and it is not proper Catholic teaching to view Mary in that way. There's always bad apples in every bunch.
Yep!
What was the rag? Doesn't the fact that a NEWSPAPER was pushing it sound a little, i dunno, PHONY to you?
>> Worship Mary? Worship dead Christians of ancient renown? <<
The author states that her meaning when she says "worship" is to give honor as one worthy of emulation.
>>Patron saint of... taxi drivers ... venereal disease ... horticulturalists ... hemmorhoids <<
So you go and look up the most outrageous, extreme example so you can ridicule it. Wonderful, you've reached the intellectual maturity of the Daily Show. And ooh, you can cite a reference source that any drunk can create the references for. Please, Wikipedia measns something when there's a community of people hammering away a definition... for obscure Catholics saints, it's about as reliable as a source as the nearest Wiccan allergist.
It so happens that St. Fiachre was renowned for miraculous healings, including converting sexual sinners to Christ, and healing many forms of polyps, cists, and what probably would now be called cancer. And, yes, he stood as a witness to God's miraculous mercy extending even to those afflicted with venereal disease.
So, exactly why is it a bad thing for those Christian converts who suffer from veneral disease and hemorrhoids to know that they have someone in Heaven praying for them?
But I though you said he was a misogynist.
Welcome back! Stick around. Lots to hear lately. 8~)
Does "Mother Jesus" then make it "Father Mary"? Life is so confusing these days. ;O)
**So, exactly why is it a bad thing for those Christian converts who suffer from veneral disease and hemorrhoids to know that they have someone in Heaven praying for them?***
***Send them to a doctor instead. Even a Protestant doctor.***
They could call priest to lay hands on the afflicted region of the patient. Annointing it with oil or some other preparation (for some reason the letter "h" comes to mind).
No, I'm not aware of that, since it's not true. Augustine recognized the existence of free will, of true merit on the part of the justified, even to the point of meriting eternal life, (cfr. On Grace and Free Will, for the first, throughout, for the second, chapters 18-21), the possibility of a failure to persevere on the part of some of the faithful and the consequent impossibility of an absolute certitude (without special revelation) that one will persevere (cfr. the The Gift of Perseverance, chapters 19, 21). Moreover, nowhere in his works do we find the doctrine of the "irresistible grace" (not to be confused with the idea of an infallibly efficacious grace, which he held and which is a legitimate belief among Catholics, cfr. the Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Controversies on Grace").
As the denial of these points and the affirmation of the irresistibility of grace constitute the major portions of the so-called "doctrines of grace" that we disagree with (we stand with you in rejecting semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism, of course), I feel quite confident in claiming Augustine for the Catholic side - he is, after all, the great "doctor of grace" for us Catholics, too.
Admittedly, arguing over who is following Augustine's teachings is a bit pointless since, after all, you can always reply that you'd rather take scripture over what he said!
Not quite equivalent. The Protestant (I take it you are one) doesn't assign a normative value to tradition. I don't overthrow the basis of your belief in Calvinism even if I prove that no one between 100 AD and 1520 AD held to the distinctively Calvinist systematic theory of grace. I presume you'd base your belief on scripture, and after all, you yourself said that Calvin explained it better than Augustine did.
In any case, if you want to discuss Augustine's doctrine, I'm certainly happy to do so as a historical matter, and I refer you to the references I gave in my previous post for important differences between Augustine's teaching and that of John Calvin.
A topic for another thread. And Orthodox Presbyterian would be the true Protestant champion for Augustine's grace. He has posted on this topic for years. He could probably assemble 50 pages of sinewy argument on the subject quite easily.
Hmm.... er, yeah, actually, we do. A "standard" which "possesses utility"? I think that would describe the Old-School Baptist and Presbyterian consideration of Tradition. The difference is simply that Protestants do not assign a pre-eminent value to Tradition; Protestants believe that the relative worth of Patristic Tradition should be judged against the bar of Scripture (rather than the reverse, as in the Roman practice).
I don't overthrow the basis of your belief in Calvinism even if I prove that no one between 100 AD and 1520 AD held to the distinctively Calvinist systematic theory of grace.
Depending on just how narrowly you construct your definitions, you could just about prove that no-one since AD 1536 "held to the distinctively Calvinist systematic theory of grace", either... I suppose, if your definitions were sufficiently narrow, you could "prove" that John Calvin himself did not.
However, if one allows for a reasonably inclusive definition of doctrinal equivalency, there's ample evidence from Roman Catholic monks, bishops, and even popes acknowledging that groups of Western Christians independent of the Roman See held beliefs "the same as that of" Calvin, hundreds of years before John Calvin was born.
In any case, if you want to discuss Augustine's doctrine, I'm certainly happy to do so as a historical matter, and I refer you to the references I gave in my previous post for important differences between Augustine's teaching and that of John Calvin.
There are some differences between Augustine's beliefs and those of John Calvin (Luther was actually closer to Augustine himself; much of Calvinism is essentially Lutheranism with certain of Augustine's errors redacted); for example, Augustine believed that all unbaptized children dying in infancy automatically go to hell, whereas Calvin believed that the preponderance of Biblical evidence (if not, perhaps, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") suggested the opposite. They were, however, both unreservedly monergistic on the doctrine of absolute predestination and the initiation of Salvation; and this is the key point of agreement Calvinists draw from Augustine.
Incidentally, some of the "differences" you purport to describe between Calvin's views and Augustine's actually prove just how identical their beliefs really are. For example, Calvinists do not deny the existence of "free will", either; Sinners freely will to Sin, for that is what they want to do... and what is more, I'm fairly confident that you could replace the term "Irresistible Grace" with "Infallibly-efficacious Grace" in every work of Calvinist theology ever written, and it would not change Calvinist theology one whit -- we wouldn't even have to trade in the TULIP acronym.
I could go on, but that really would be a subject for another thread.
Best, OP
Hi OP,
As far as "normative" tradition, sorry for any confusion. I meant as a norm or rule of faith. Obviously Protestants do recognize normative traditions such as the Lutheran Confessions or the WCF but they aren't rules of faith.
I can't agree that Calvin recognizes the existence of a "free-will" in the sense Augustine does. Augustine recognizes that, even under the influence of efficacious grace, the will retains the power to resist, i.e. its freedom. Calvin, so far as I can tell, doesn't.
As far as the other points, I'll leave them for that future thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.