*blink* *blink*... !!! You'll have to forgive me if I sit down a moment and catch my breath, lest I swoon... Your forthright answer (the first of it's kind in my experience wrt this issue from RCs) gives cause for commendation, not to mention wonderment. Just a sec whilst I fumble for a paper bag (sans glue or aerosol, for now) to steady my breathing...
Now, for the inevitable question (I am sure you can see this one coming): Regarding said scantiness of evidence: DOESN"T THAT BOTHER YOU?
And this goes where this particular fool fears to tread, back into the relationship of tradition and Scripture. It doesn't seem strike me as gnostic because I don't see it as sprung full grown from the head of Zeus or of some particular guru (nor does it denigrate creation and creatures, but that's a digression).
I meant 'gnostic' in the general sense of hidden 'knowledge'. It is usually in the form of a 'new' discovery of a book of 'scripture' which purports to show a new, deeper knowledge of some sort. Such things were used as an attempt to shoehorn pagan beliefs into Christian thought, or to prove the veracity of some vain thought without evidence in true Scripture. A hallmark of such works is a blatant attempt to wheedle confirmation by way of applying extrapolative gymnastics to various obsure verses in true Scripture in order to lend credence to the counterfeit work.
A close cousin of gnosticsm (while not gnostic per se, as it is sanctioned) is the very same action applied by way of tradition rather than by an attempt to add to the Scriptures. A ready example can be found in the Hebrew Traditions, where the Hebrew faith was certainly manipulated to consolidate priestly power, and to introduce all sorts of heresy to include mysticism, among others.
Considering the heritage of Christianity, it's founding in the Hebrew faith, and pausing to consider (without rancor) that such manipulation already occured in Jehovah's Levitical system, wouldn't it be considered a sound concern, as taken up by Protestants, that ~no~ tradition should oppose or add to the spirit and faith as presented in the Holy Scriptures?
The world view, the 'what we bring to the table' of Scripture as the sole judge and arbiter of the Church... I can see how in that view a LOT of what we do and teach seems sort of flakey (at the kindest!)
There is much to applaud in the Catholic Church- There is much in majesty, formality, and reverence. There is earnestness and good works. The lion's share of Catholic practices are admirable and well meaning. I would not describe them as 'flakey' at all (or at least, for the most part :) ).
But, well, I have said this before and taken some heat (more heat than light) for it, but to me it is as though IHS and the Spirit started an avalanche which has been tumbling down a huge slope ever since increasing in size and complexity, swallowing trees, people houses, cities ..... ,and within this "chaotic" (in the scienterrific sense) thing the Bible shapes and corrects and guides and judges and provides a forming tension or orientation within the dynamic system.
That's a really good analogy. The criticism I would interject would be that there doesn't seem to be a way to back it all up. No reverse gear, if you might imagine. The corporate structure of the RCC would seem to be very rigid and hierarchical, and as with any corporate structure, it has a tendency to indemnify itself, to immunize itself against change.
Not that such rigidity is necessarily always a bad thing, mind you. I would consider the preservation of the Scriptures to be largely due to immovable Rome. One might suggest that such a structure serves to preserve, to keep heresy at bay...
But, and this is a big hairy but, I am afraid that such a structure would fail in one certain way- That being a case wherein heresy does enter. If such does occur, it seems to me that the monolithic and preservative qualities of the RCC structure would have a tendency to preserve and expand that accepted heresy, and would really provide *no* means of rejecting such a thing, especially as years roll by and it is incorporated into accepted Tradition. Since Tradition is given the same weight as the Word of God, that accepted heresy effectively changes the Word in just the fashion that Christ railed against while He was among us:
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(e-Sword: KJV)
I am sure the priesthood of that day considered themselves likewise immune from error, and that they declared themseves God's hand in the concerns of man's salvation. But by Christ's own mouth they had been found to have corrupted the Word. What an awful thing, that the Savior's visit would condemn the very system thought to represent Him on the earth! It should be a caution to us all.
[...] we should probably spend more time asking, "What do your people think of this or that and how do you do the other?" than fulminating and breathing threats and slaughter.
While I agree (and I do, really), I doubt that such an arrangement is possible in a grand scheme. Our singular reliance on faith and scripture makes us an ill fit for the Catholic mold, and Catholic dependencies make them ill suited to the necessary independencies found in the Protestant mold. You and I may be able to speak rationally on the issue, but I think the temperment needed for such an exchange is hard to find without being EC, which is anethema to both sides.
betentacled (spell check does not recognize this word - drive on)
I believe the proper tense and form would be 'betentackleboxed', unless one has dangling participles, in which case, I can recommend a useful ointment. :D
How about this: Someone who approaches the Scriptures without the organizing and hermeneutic of catholic tradition [note singular, though I'm not sure why - caffein, brain,... you understand] will not find in them what we teach about Mary.
A stunning concession on your part (Where did I put that paper bag)! Then perhaps what must come next is a summary of the "organizing and hermeneutic of Catholic tradition" which allows for such as the Marian doctrine. Is there a way to present it in a workable form for the purpose of the discussion at hand?
Considering the above concession, can you see where Protestants' concerns are valid?
Thanks for your patience in this exchange. Will you join me in a glass of Brxgxft? We think it quite delicious.
I will have to pass. I recently imbibed several vials of screesplotz with an Alpha-Centurian. Being a Martian, perhaps you don't know, but consuming screesplotz and brxgxft within close proximity can cause an harmonic sort of flatulence that can cause bull moose to immediately enter a rutting state. As you can probably undertand, a rutting moose infestation is something I dare not chance, though I am quite thankful for the invitation. ;)
I am enjoying this conversation. I apologogize for my tardy reply. I am often unable, as illness intervenes. Please don't suppose I am ignoring you.
The extremely short answer.(gales of happy laughter, when was Mad Dawg ever brief?)
We just don't think that our tradition is "traditions of men". We have this treasure in extremely earthen vessels, some KIND of earthen, and we trust in God to keep us out of the soup.
Now for the long tedious verbose gloss:
As I have tried to convey in other posts hither and yon, I like this model: In Acts we have an example of the Church facing a controversy. The controversy percolates for a while with some hemming and hawing and less than gentle language. Then the Church leadership goes into a huddle and comes out with, "It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit ....."
That's a precedent, for us. It's an indication of how the Church functions.
And the first thing is that it is largely reactive. "Sinless" Mary seems to be thought of as far back as the mid fourth century when, I am told, Ephrem the Syrian describes the tradition as coming from the Apostles.
It is discussed back and forth and up and down for 1,500 years! Finally the Pope asks all the bishops what they think. They tell him and most of them are for "immaculate conception". So finally, after maybe more than a millennium and a half, the Pope rears back and lets fly.
Similarly with closing the OT canon and with transubstantiation. The OT canon is defined at Trent only because a bunch o' guys say, It's THIS." So we have to say, "Well, it's THAT, actually." UP until then, we just kind of let it hang there.
And transubstantiation is discussed for a long time and for even longer there seems to be at least a strand of thought that IHS is strongly, even "really", connected to the Sacrament.
So, again, after extremely lengthy debate or an articulation of a strong opinion which the Catholic Church finds unacceptable, then the Church does its declaring and defining thing.
Now if the Scriptures said, absolutely unequivocally, "Ain't no way Mary was immaculately conceived," I think the conversation would not have gone on for long. So in answer to the question:
Regarding said scantiness of evidence: DOESN'T THAT BOTHER YOU?
I cheerfully say, Nope.
I'm relying on God to provide precisely that kind of guidance in more or less that manner.
Now I could be living in a fool's paradise, but I really think that all the vibe of "conclaves" and such provides space for a lot of unrealistic and slightly paranoid imagining about the way the Church works. (Do read my #4500 if you have the time. It may somehow be relevant.)
But we think that the Easter Evening and Pentecost gifts make a new and different pledge to the "Assembly of the Lord" and promise its preservation in dogma (and that's important) from the liabilities of the community of the old covenant. (The "in dogma" restriction is because we know that guys themselves or often jerks and bozos, uh, I mean to say, earthen vessels.
The corporate structure of the RCC would seem to be very rigid and hierarchical, and as with any corporate structure, it has a tendency to indemnify itself, to immunize itself against change.
We need a good historian, and I ain't one. I think the Church is decent at CYA maneuvers. I think, thought, that the structres do change. Look at what John XXIII and Paul VI were able to do.
But, well, as I tried to suggest in the lengthy #4500, the law of the Medes and the Persians don't back up too good, but it can't be capricious, as Darius discovered. If you have infallibility hanging over you, if you know that "Oops!" is not going to be an option, you watch what you say.
I don't know enough. I DO know that the Inquisition has a totally horrible reputation and that SOME of that is deserved, but some not. An historian told me some months back that in the Spanish Inquisition what is NOT reported was that some miscreants charged with secular offenses would say, "OH yeah, and the Pope's mother wears combat boots," in hopes that they'd come before the Inquisition which was more merciful, as a rule, and had better "processes" than the secular courts.
To judge the behavior of an age when "freedom of religion" was generally considered to be a totally bizarre concept that no sensible person would uphold, when persisting in heresy was considered to be like saying, "YES I gave the names of our agents to the KGB, and I'm glad, do you hear, GLAD! Bwah hah hah!" the excesses of the Inquisition are perhaps judged more appropriately. If you really believe in witches and really think that they are agents of the worst possible enemy, and if the usual secular punishment for high treason is so awful that I cannot bring myself to describe it here, then in its context, some of the atrocities are not forgivable, but at least understandable.
But I see that viewed from the outside, this seems like a self-justifying circular sort of thing. We're going to say, again and again, that we think that God will simply not allow heresy to enter. Period. Not because WE're good, the evidence that we are not is too great to contradict, but because HE is.
Look at it from my POV for a second. JP2, whom I really really liked a LOT, (he's certainly one of the phenoms that made converting easier for me) dies. The Cardinals meet. I KNOW that there are a few bozos among them, and I suppose there are some whom I do not know. I'm sitting there wondering if they're going to elect some, "Let it all hang out, break out the guitars, kumbaya," kind of guy. So my faith in what I take to be God's promise to the Church is challenged throughout the brief conclave. I have to re-examine my trust in God. And I do two things. I pray to God to be faithful to His promise and to give me the grace of further and deeper confidence in Him.
I can see how to some Catholicism seems to be all majesty and ceremony and impressing the masses. But I've seen a parade. I like 'em fine, but they don't change my mind one way or the other. I know the real deal is not the watered silk, but what the guys think about, and pray about, in their underwear. It's easier to believe in MY interpretation of Scripture, and I've studied it some, than to let God handle it. But for me to trust the Church IS to let God handle it, or feels like that. He's the one I pour my heart out to anyway ....
Blah blah blah.
Sorry your health is interfering with your participation. But the tempo is fine with me. I'll nag God about your health tonight.