Replies

AARRGH! screesplotz! You DRINK that stuff? We use it as hubcap polish on our saucers.

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.

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.

Greetings Maddawg! Here is hoping this missive finds you well.

AARRGH! screesplotz! You DRINK that stuff? We use it as hubcap polish on our saucers.

I know... It was an unfortunate coincidence, kind of like when one is in a Scotsman's house around dinner time, and finding to one's dismay, that haggis is on the menu... You might try some haggis on those hubcaps, come to think of it.

HUBCAPS on your saucer??? How very '50's of you... It wasn't one of you fellows who fell off the intergalactic tollway and smacked into Roswell, NM, was it?

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.

Yet the Marian doctrines serve perfectly the same function as those which Christ abhorred- adding to God's word to make it null, or at least different. I don't want you to think that said with an accusing tone, but one must admit, it seems an awfully bold position, don't you think?

[...] The controversy percolates for a while [...]. 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.

That isn't an uncommon process in Protestant churches (and synods, etc) either...

I am sorry, but anything coming from Catholic tradition after about 300 AD is entirely suspect, and that arising before that date must be nearly so... The RCC was very faithful in preserving the Scripture, but I am not convinced that the same can be said for Traditions. It is a concern of mine.

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.

[...] 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.

And therein lies concern. It seems that a popular notion, bound to enough time, is enough to promote that notion's acceptance. That is precisely what worries me, as there is no singular authority. It is for that reason that sola scriptura is held in high esteem by Protestants.

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.

GADZOOKS, man! How perilous!

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.

Well, I don't want to sound to forward on this issue, but considering the monumental rift between the Protestants and the RCC and the even longer standing problem between the Eastern Orthodox and the RCC, What is it that assures you that your branch has in fact been maintained above the other confessions? After all, all three were birthed from the Apostolic Church... What says that your doctrine supersedes the others (and plz, let's not go on about apostolic succession and all that)?

But "oops!" is ALWAYS an option, Dawg, and there is plenty of history to prove that it is not absent in the RCC... The whole 'infalability' thing is old and tired by now, as one must certainly admit.

[...] 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.

Of course they would if they were Catholics... I am afraid we will have to disagree regarding the Inquisition(s). The "SOME" which you refer to is very nearly the definition of atrocity, and done with the blessing of the RCC and in Christ's name. More than that, and my real contention with the RCC, was it's wandering down the lily strewn path of empire. RCs are quick to say there was nothing but the RCC for 1500 years, but they always leave off the reason: Because the Holy Roman Empire, the modern foundation of the RCC, crushed it's naysayers and competitors unmercifully. There was no opposition to the Catholic view because those who opposed her died horribly. Those deemed heretical are gone, along with most of their writings, so there is no way to judge those earlier "protestants" as to their veracity of claim.

[...] 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.

Considering the torture chambers known to history, Considering the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children, whole communities, deigned to be heretic, all I can say is... Oof.

And I will continue to say that Protestantism should be a wakeup call to the RCC that they have fallen by the way. There is no way that Jesus would allow such strife in his Church without it being corrective, and I think it should be viewed as such.

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.

Ahh... the 'vicary pickery proc.' (Sorry, I couldn't help myself)

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 really hope that works for you FRiend. I am glad that we as Protestants need not worry, for our leader never dies. ;)

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 ....

Again, I am glad it works for you, but I cannot get past the obvious changes to the Holy Word of God. I cannot abide it, as He has said His word NEVER changes. It is that which is the primary cause for sola scriptura- God's Word is set in stone, and we can rely upon it to judge those things which are against Him by that very Word.

I really mean that, too. I mean Old Testament Word. God laid out how it was best for Man to live, and that hasn't changed either. His Sabbath and Holidays, His ordinances and laws. Why would ANY of that change? If it was good for Man then, what makes us think to do differently, and to expect blessing from it? In fact, everyone knows that Kosher laws are very healthful. The blood and the fat are for God, and here we find out that blood tainted meat passes infection, and fat is very bad for the human body. One can certainly see the effect of dishonoring His morality laws in the world around us today.

If anything, I think Protestants are not close enough to sola scriptura, not to mention the RCC. When Christ comes, and we bow before our King, have we any doubt that that which He set forth then would be any different now?

Sorry your health is interfering [...] I'll nag God about your health tonight.

Thank you for your kind concern, and for your prayers.

FReegards