We Do claim a "superiority" (a superiority by gift) in the "means of grace" (the sacraments), and that would be in terms of reliability or assuredness.
I'm up on this because at the request of my pastor I wrote an "epistle" to some Episcopalians who were thinking about converting and who needed to wrap their minds around what it meant when we said that their sacraments were invalid. I said, inter alia that we would not say that God had certainly NOT acted in those "attempts" at sacramental ministration, but only that he sho' 'nuff, you can take it to the bank, acts in those of the Catholic Church. (If you want, I can email you the article. It's good for sleeplessness. Most people read two sentences and doze right off.)In any event, claiming plene esse of churchiness is to be distinguished from claiming superiority across the board.
Okay, WE're patronizing and condescending? Have you read some of the characterizations on your side? "Anti-Christ"? "Whore of Babylon"? "Magicsterical"?
Now I don't think those are patronizing and condescending, as it happens, though some of them are needlessly and uselessly hostile. But let's look closer.
In general Protestants talk about an "invisible" Church, loosely attached or related (if it is attached or related at all) to ecclesial-type organizations. I would say you don't even want to be or think it possible to be what we mean by "The Church." So we AGREE with you that your organizations are not a Church as we think Church to be. It seems hard to call agreement arrogant and condescending. You don't even WANT to be what we think the Church is. There's a disagreement on the nature of "Church", and is it arrogant of us to think we're right but not arrogant of those who disagree with us to think THEY're right?
Anyway, a lot of the rest of what you're writing seems to me to confuse the claim of the plene esse of Church with moral superiority. The image I want is that of a lot of sick scoundrels and fools in charge of the best pharmaceutical supply-house in the world. And if somebody says, "How good can the medicines be if those guys are so sick?" I'll answer, "You should see them without the medicine!" If I haven't persuaded you of the distinction or that one in no way implies the other (not in my alleged mind, anyway) let me know.
But that one Church is only you guys and no one else ...
No. The FULLNESS of Church is only we guys. To me at any rate that's an important distinction.
You guys validly baptize. If someone who could show that he'd been baptized in water in the name of the Trinity in the "up-in-the-holler, snake-handlin', poison-drinkin', hard-shell, foot-washin', two-seed in the Spirit, baptized by fire, Holiness Gospel Assembly", we will NOT make OUR ceremony and sacrament of baptism a condition of admission to the sacraments. How much less so if he was baptized in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You read most of the sho' 'nuff Scriptures. You pray, or some of you do (as a few of us do), devoutly, and you commend and commit your lives to Christ. A lot of what you teach and preach is very fine indeed, and the manner of its expression ought often to be an example and rebuke to some of our preachers and teachers. I can with real spiritual benefit listen to some evangelical radio stations.
We're not saying you ain't got nuthin'. We're saying you don't have it all, all of what the Church offers. I'm not trying to sell the Catholic Church here. I'm trying to clarify Dominus Iesus and the gloss that came out afterwards -- and to de-fang it a little.
As far as the Pope holding all aridly authority goes, if you have the time, check my tome on another thread. Such brilliance can not be repeated too often, it'd be like champagne for breakfast. (Not to self: confess lack of humility ...) To sum it up, I think the Lockean/Montesquieu-ian view of polity is not appropriately applied to the governance of the Catholic Church. And specifically, when the Pope, say, defines the Assumption, a lot of Protestants think of that as a kind of sua sponte, executive function, but it's way more like an exercise of what we in the US would think of as judicial function (if we want to try to force it into modern political categories). The question is nattered about for a hundred or a thousand years and the Pope is petitioned and nagged and counseled and advised and argued with, and finally he says, "Okay. Enough already. Here's what we teach: blah blah blah, I declare and define, blah blah blah. Roma locuta, causa finita, next case."
Jeesh, why don't we just discuss every important issue in one post and crash the system? But let's move on to faith and works:
If Christ really truly died once and for all for the sins of the elect, then further human atonement would not be necessary. Since the Church teaches that after belief future works are required to be saved, then the threshold of salvation being certain for all time will only be crossed based on a work of a man.
First of all, we should insert "ordinarily" before "required". If you get hit by a truck and in hyour expiring breath you conceive inwaqrdly that Jesus really IS Lord and you want Him for your personal savior, don't worry, you're in. (In purgatory, probably, but you're still in.) But if you miraculously recover, it would be a good idea to get Baptized.
Anyway, the hidden assumption is in the last prepositional phrase, "of a man". The "works" and their "merits" ARE graces. There's as fine a statement of this as I've ever read in this Month's (that is, April) First Things. I can't find my copy in the swamp here and it won't be online until next month's issue is published. But the author has the wisdom and perceptiveness to agree with moi that both works and their "merit" are gifts, not "earned" in any simple sense. If I do something right, (I'll let you know what that happens, if ever) it will be a gift from God, from conception to willing to performance. And the sequel, presumably beneficial to me somehow, will also be a gift.
Haven't you ever done something right and been flooded with not pride but gratitude? For it was Christ who xworked in you, both to will and to do.
As far as my take on Col 1:24 goes (and I do hold that Paul is, dramatically and not to be taken over-simply, saying that in some way there is room in Christ's work for Paul's suffering as a useful addition) I think the word "Rejoice" in "I rejoice in my sufferings" is overlooked. Paul's suffering and the works in which God summons us to walk are not burdens but gifts in which to rejoice. They are themselves salvation working in the "now", as one might say.
Sure because of our brokenness and failure of vision they sometimes seem like burdens we must carry, but they are privileges and gifts which God offers us.
I cannot help thinking that it will be good for the conversation to have discovered that you think WE separate works and faith and I think YOU do.
Enough already. I hope this was at least clear.
OK if correct, but then WHY DON'T YOU? :) You SHOULD have the right if everything the Church claims is true. The Latin Church claims exclusivity as the one TRUE Church of God. In Biblical terms, should your clergy (and your laity) be a "peculiar people"? I would think so. My analysis says that any believer, by definition, SHOULD be morally superior to any non-believer. (No props to the believer because it all comes from God.) Now, if only the Latin Church is true, then I would expect some separation away, in moral terms, from all of us heretical and blaspheming Protestants. :)
I do not claim to be morally or spiritually (whatever that might mean) superior to you, and I don't claim that my pastor is morally or spiritually superior to yours.
The Latin Church FORMALLY declares my pastor (and me) to be anathema. That sounds pretty morally superior to me. :) In your "official" eyes I am denounced and accursed. I am excommunicated and I am unworthy. There are other terms of derision and contempt used but I think you know where I'm coming from. :)
But don't worry, I'm tough. I can take it. :)
We Do claim a "superiority" (a superiority by gift) in the "means of grace" (the sacraments), and that would be in terms of reliability or assuredness.
Philosophically, I don't even begrudge that. I'm just saying I think it goes beyond that.
Okay, WE're patronizing and condescending? Have you read some of the characterizations on your side? "Anti-Christ"? "Whore of Babylon"? "Magicsterical"?
Yes, I've read all that. While it is not my personal style (most of the time :), and sometimes Luther and Calvin say these things, I do understand it. It is passion, John the Baptist style. :) So, YES, you guys are allowed to do it too. :) My underlying point just had to do with my claim of the Church's claim of moral superiority. I think if the Pope has any genuine ecumenical interests, then he either needs to change his views or hire better speech writers. :)
I do NOT think that our theological differences should be glossed over for the sake of unity. However, I think the relationship between Catholicism and Bible-believing Protestants could be legitimately better than it is now.
In general Protestants talk about an "invisible" Church, loosely attached or related (if it is attached or related at all) to ecclesial-type organizations. I would say you don't even want to be or think it possible to be what we mean by "The Church." So we AGREE with you that your organizations are not a Church as we think Church to be.
Protestants talk about an invisible Church as a Biblical fact. But we also talk about the local church, again a Biblical fact. The local church is a body of believers intent on worshiping the one true God, sometimes in one place together, like on Sundays. I see that your Pope spits on this concept for us. :)
And as for what we want, if you simply DEFINE "church" to be your idea of church, then of course we will disagree. I think that is totally artificial, and not supported by scripture. I do NOT see your METHOD of worship in scripture, in terms of practice, nor is mine explicitly laid out. But I do not claim that mine is the only correct way to worship.
There's a disagreement on the nature of "Church", and is it arrogant of us to think we're right but not arrogant of those who disagree with us to think THEY're right?
The beef is very simple. I say that you worship in a church, even though I have profound disagreement with it theologically. The Latin church denies us even that small respect. That is an example of the superiority claimed. I mean, I'll live and everything. :) I just think it is a totally unnecessary insult.
Anyway, a lot of the rest of what you're writing seems to me to confuse the claim of the plene esse of Church with moral superiority. The image I want is that of a lot of sick scoundrels and fools in charge of the best pharmaceutical supply-house in the world. And if somebody says, "How good can the medicines be if those guys are so sick?" I'll answer, "You should see them without the medicine!" If I haven't persuaded you of the distinction or that one in no way implies the other (not in my alleged mind, anyway) let me know.
You fully anticipated my follow-up, and I'm afraid that I remain unpersuaded. :) In the OT God explicitly set apart His people, that they should be a peculiar people. A light unto men. While that did not happen as WE might have imagined, it was not a total failure either. There WERE righteous men, and God DID protect the Jews. It seems that the Catholic Church is now saying that such a thing no longer applies. But I DO see a difference between believers, the invisible Church of God, and non-believers. I do NOT see a difference between Catholics and Bible-believing Protestants (in this context). That's what I don't get.
FK: "But that one Church is only you guys and no one else ..."
No. The FULLNESS of Church is only we guys. To me at any rate that's an important distinction.
I could fully deal with that as an honest disagreement. But as the article I linked to says, the Pope does not recognize me as being a part of or worshiping in God's Church.
You pray, or some of you do (as a few of us do), devoutly, and you commend and commit your lives to Christ. A lot of what you teach and preach is very fine indeed, and the manner of its expression ought often to be an example and rebuke to some of our preachers and teachers. I can with real spiritual benefit listen to some evangelical radio stations.
I believe that you truly mean that, so thank you. :)
As far as the Pope holding all aridly authority goes, if you have the time, check my tome on another thread.
I did, thank you for the link. In it you said:
So the claim of "rulership" has to be viewed in the light of subsidiarity, or it will sound like what a lot of Protestants seem to think, that the Pope can rightly (according to Protestant thought) reach into the details of our family lives and mess around with them if he wants. Further, again, the impossibility of exercising that kind of minute control, even if it were legitimate, over 1 billion people seems to be overlooked. Once the Pope acts, okay, no one overrules him, except in passive aggressive ways, I guess.
My understanding is that the Pope absolutely DOES reach down into the personal lives of his followers to declare what is allowable and what is not. Birth-control is an example. I am not arguing the merits, but the Pope DOES actually do this. Of course not all Catholics comply, but it is what Catholicism commands.
And specifically, when the Pope, say, defines the Assumption, a lot of Protestants think of that as a kind of sua sponte, executive function, but it's way more like an exercise of what we in the US would think of as judicial function (if we want to try to force it into modern political categories). The question is nattered about for a hundred or a thousand years and the Pope is petitioned and nagged and counseled and advised and argued with, and finally he says, "Okay. Enough already. Here's what we teach: blah blah blah, I declare and define, blah blah blah. Roma locuta, causa finita, next case."
I appreciate the distinction, but what about things like selling indulgences to raise money for a building project? A Pope fully endorsed that. I'm no expert on the history, but I always thought that was pretty new. That seems much more executive than judicial to me.
FK: "If Christ really truly died once and for all for the sins of the elect, then further human atonement would not be necessary. Since the Church teaches that after belief future works are required to be saved, then the threshold of salvation being certain for all time will only be crossed based on a work of a man." (emphasis added)
First of all, we should insert "ordinarily" before "required". If you get hit by a truck and in your expiring breath you conceive inwardly that Jesus really IS Lord and you want Him for your personal savior, don't worry, you're in.
Yes, for me, and I think most other Reformers, for these types of discussions, let's just agree to throw out the exceptions that we probably agree on anyway. I do not think that Catholics see the destiny of aborted babies materially differently than we do.
[Referencing my above quote from my last post:] Anyway, the hidden assumption is in the last prepositional phrase, "of a man". The "works" and their "merits" ARE graces.
That sounds great, but I don't understand how your idea of free will works into this. That's what I meant by "of a man". Giving God an "assist" does not change that a man decided to take the shot (and make it).
Haven't you ever done something right and been flooded with not pride but gratitude? For it was Christ who worked in you, both to will and to do.
Yes, sure. How does free will fit in?
I think the word "Rejoice" in "I rejoice in my sufferings" is overlooked. Paul's suffering and the works in which God summons us to walk are not burdens but gifts in which to rejoice.
Yes, on that I can fully agree with you. And this is from someone who freely admits that he has a ways to go himself on fully understanding and appreciating that. :)
I cannot help thinking that it will be good for the conversation to have discovered that you think WE separate works and faith and I think YOU do.
I am fully willing to listen and everything, but, ........ I do. :)