>For decades there have been some wild and crazy womens' orders.<
Yes, and while i disagree that the New Testament church ordained a separate class of sacerdotal priests, i see the Bible clearly upholding the headship of the male, and the patriarchal order in general. The manner of argumentation used by feminists against this actually militates against such being teachers.
>if you really intend your actions to proceed from a love of God and to serve Him and your neighbor, then go ahead and use contraception. This is explicitly dissed in Veritatis Splendor..<
While one who does an inherently bad thing with a good motive can more mercy, this is a dangerous principle. But as regards contraception, Roman Catholic theologians debate the level of authority of this teaching.
>nullus salus extra ecclesia has been developed and in a good way...after centuries of prayer and thought, we refined our concept of Church so that we were clear that the membership was a lot larger than those with pledge cards<
This could easily be a thread all its own, and is another testimony to the degree of interpretation that can take place over time within Rome itself, and i will just say here that I am aware of the development of doctrine concept and the basic reasoning used in order to render statements such as "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Bull Unam sanctam, 1302. which Manning affirmed was an infallible decree), and that "none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal" (Cantate Domino, 1441), as not really excluding baptized Prots, as long as they are invincibly ignorant that Rome is the one true church (the presuppositions of which are a real issue). But i think that if Rome still had her unBiblical civil powers, and liberals did not have so much sway in V2, then this would have a decidedly harsher understanding, as sedevacantists contend.
>All my rejection of Ps 65:2 was to show IT was incompetent to prove what it was sent out to prove.<
If i not assumed that you would not contest the obvious, that “one of God's Divine attributes “is the ability to hear and answer infinite numbers of prayers”, which is no where manifested of any others, then i could have provided far substantiation for to. Those who want to score points by rejecting a given as having insufficient attestation had better have their own.
>intercessory prayer is licit.... AND our side says that the "Dead" are not dead and can, in the Spirit which unites us, "hear" our prayers...Our King gives His immaculate mother such honor as He can...we can therefore reasonably ask for Mary's intercession.<
That the departed can hear is speculation, but while we do so on earth hearing and answering infinite numbers of prayer is only evidenced to be one of God's incommunicable attributes, and while communicating that way om earth to others is a practice of the occult. That Jesus would honor his mother in not an issue, nor that intercessory prayer is valid, but the issues are whether saints are empowered by God to hear billions of prayers, and more critically, that they are to be a heavenly objects of intercession, and that honoring Mary means exalting her a Rome does. For that manner of empowering and honoring you have no real precedent or precept, and it is contrary to what God does abundantly provide on the issue. Who did souls pray to, who were they instructed to pray to, and who is set forth as the wholly qualified direct heavenly object of pray only point to the Being called God. That is what is evidenced to be the will of God. Using While we ask each other in earth to pray for us, only God can hear we also do other things which are not done is heaven
>fallen kings gave their fallen mothers such honor as they could.<
Again, that is not the issue, but they being an elevated as a universal object of intercession is, and all you really is have is a evil man asking a bad request, with bad end. No real substance or encouragement for what Rome has extrapolated out it. And in addition, and in the light of what the Holy Spirit provides in encouraging prayer and to who, there is neither warrant or need to pray to anyone else.
>In my view that "surely"presupposes that the sola Scriptura argument has been settled.<
Your premise here is an argument against church tradition, as unlike primary traditions which may be to validated to some degree by Scripture, directly or substantively derived, and if consistent with it, such as women wearing a head covering, (1Cor. 11) praying to the departed and the Mary being the heavenly dispenser to salvation and all grace is so wholly based upon the bottomless pit of uncodified tradition that one may wonder if there could be any limit to such things. Along that line, I really think that if the Reformation had not happened, with its resultant challenges for chapter and verse, there would have been more ex cathedra affirmations of the manner of the last one (hardly based upon unanimous consent either!)
>To trust the magisterium, to affirm the infallibility of the Pope, is to jump off the cliff and trust that God will catch you.<
I think by infallibly defining yourself (conditionally) infallible, exalting yourself as the entity which alone can authoritatively defines what is the Word of God and its meaning, while lacking the manner kind of supernatural Divine attestation afforded Moses, and the manner of purity, power and Scriptural probity of a Paul, is to jump off cliff - and take a lot of others with you.
>Now I am some sort of very inadequate and poorly trained theologian,<
And i think honest. And i am a former truck driver, with formal education ending at H.S, and am a slow thinker and not particularly smart, but God teaches me things (with so much more i could learn if i was more spiritual), and what is required above all is one “who is of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word”, (Is. 66:2) and that is my most constant need.
>If you WANT to talk Eucharistic theology, fine. But the main thing, He is here, and HE is here because He loves you....So our primary focus is not this or that teaching. Our primary focus is Jesus.<
It may surprise you if i said that i believe one can believe in transubstantiation and be saved, even though i do not see this as being the most warranted interpretation. And the main thing is Jesus, and preaching His gospel. That is why i have said that even if Rome would but labor to convict souls of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment, rather than treating them as Christians in recognition of their (the majority) infant sprinkling via proxy faith, and that they were utterly destitute of any merit by which they might escape Hell fire and gain eternal life, and instead, call them to look directly to God for mercy, trusting in the sinless shed blood of Christ to save them by faith (which produces following its Object), then the relationship between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals would be much different. But instead, what is officially taught, and especially what is effectually conveyed, is that of confidence in one's own merit and the power of Rome for salvation, and which her bureaucratic system depends on. Meanwhile, Roman Catholics who preach and believe more evangelically are the decided minority.
<Long enough for ya?<
Yes!, and i am even more wordy, and thus i split it up. Not fully proof read either
Thank you for these two posts. For a “mere” High School educated truck driver, you have been taught well of the things of God by his Holy Spirit. But, when you think about it, you had more eduction than most of the Apostles and look what God was able to do with them! God bless you and I hope you continue to bless us with your posts.
BUT, this is going to get beyond my capacity really fast, so I am going to ATTEMPT to be concise as can be. ADD and reading issues don't go with my academic desires. (That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.)
Your first points highlight agreement with the lack of Scriptural support for ( as distinct from scriptural incompatability with ) the Marian Dogma.
we are dealing here with basic RC and Prot. differences, which the above entities have no interest in reconciling, and as Trent further evidenced, such cannot be allowed, no matter how weighty and warranted the evidence might be, due to what the doctrine of infallibility requires.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference in ecclesiology.
1. How is a person to know for sure that the RCC is infallible? "by a gift from God." "by the study of Church history."
The first would be a given, but even that presumes some basis for assent,
I think it is the most important, not logically trivial. That is, I am aware of the self-reference in our ecclesiology. Unless you said something I missed (VERY possible) I would suggest that the same kind of self-reference characterizes SS.
Scripture is quoted to support the perpetuated Petrine papacy, etc., but contrary Scriptural evidence is rejected on the basis of the basis of private interpretations being disallowed, while Mariology on steroids, by Biblical standards, abounds.
Barring the Marian part (which I mostly concede), I think that's a little unfair. The "Scripture interprets Scripture" argument is used by your side to certify whichever view is being examined. If one is to make a coherent theology from the Bible there are going to be some texts which get more oomph than others. I don't see that as being avoidable.
As a general hedge, I would ask: Are we now saying that the decision of Acts 15 was unanimously upheld? I don't think so. Judaizers were a problem afterwards, were they not? And it is not a bad thing, is it, that the Catholic ecclesiology is self-consistent? Is self-contradiction a good thing?
... based upon an erroneous idea of what constitutes the authenticity of a church or Christian, which is not formal organic ecclesiastical lineage, but effectual faith which Peter confessed, and by extension, Christ Himself, and by which the church exists and overcomes.
Slipping from description to argumentation is confusing. I would substitute "disputed" for erroneous, for the sake of clarity. We know on which side the other stands. ;-)
Further, I think we may have a difference over the works-theology of ex opere operans and ex opere operato> If anything metastasized it is our rejeciton of Donatism and our radical dependence of God, rather than the virtues of this or that pope.
God can indeed raise up children of the covenant from stones, and some of those children, in holy orders or not, may have heads full of rocks even after their raising up.
As Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal Yves Congar [Dominican and considered by many to be wildly liberal] stated .../i>
Again, unanimity or consensus is a standard that I think hasn't been met since Acts 15.
Cardinal Manning (1808-1892), who was a supreme proponent of Roman ecclesiastical power, stated that Rome's doctrines were as pure as the light, and like Jesus, were the same yesterday, today and forever, yet they in no way were dependent upon historical continuity, “But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy...
It really irritates me when people do the 'same yesterday, today, and clear into next weekend' thing. I know what they mean, but the development of doctrine makes the claim needlessly obscure and confusing.
I'm guessing, I don't know, that the "history ... treason" thing (the guy needed some lessons in outreach, IMHO) means only that the conjectures about a certain ecclesiastical purity in the apostolic and sub-apostolic age contradicts our notion that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church and protected her from [critical] error from Pentecost (or Easter -- or the Annunciation) to now and will to the end of the age.
And I think Luther, despite his faults, served in that unction and function.
I think Luther, like many of his time, were the inevitable fruit of a Nominalist view of the will and other errors not directly associated with ecclesiology. Nevertheless, if Luther had not renounced the Church, he would have been an awesome prophet. It took us too many centuries, but the clear and partially deserved accusations of the reformers have, "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," done us great good, on the positive side, and on the negative side, union with the "Eastern Church" and with our Protestant brothers would do the Church a world of good. When I'm not arguing with you all, I am grieving that we are not 100% on the same team.
I say again that Dominic and Francis showed other ways to do reform which were just as critical of the luxury and venality of some of the bozos as anything Luther did. Nothing like walking miles barefoot and begging one's supper (and laughing when the supper is not forthcoming) to witness to faith. Some say it beats swords.
As to interpreting correctly: This illustrates (to moi) the Protestant failure to deal correctly with 1 Cor 12 and other passages about diversity of gifts. Not every Catholic is going to be looking into these comparatively recondite matters. I make it through my spiritual day (if I don't log on to FR) only sometimes dealing with theology. There's talking about God and there's living in and with God. You don't need to be a theologian to do the latter. Blessed Margaret of Castello again. She is as much my hero as Aquinas is, and more so in some respects.
Those who hold to SS cannot do so, as if they were little popes, but must Biblically substantiate their doctrine, and be subject to sound examination on that basis. Adherents of SS (which does not include cults)
Why is the exclusion of cults not an artificial distinction? The Jehovah's Witnesses make imposing arguments to support their Arianism. By what standard is one group called a cult and another not? Also, what is a "basic salvific truth?" Isn't that itself a matter of debate? To observe the Arminian/Calvinist tussle here, one would conclude that the Calvinists are accusing the Arminians of something right next door to the Sin against the Holy Ghost.
The disagreements of the Catholic in the street to me indicate how we hope to preach and teach the Gospel and to provide other spiritual helps, but leave the "increase" to God. A Buddhist saying is "If you hold a lotus to a rock long enough, who knows, it might take root." Similarly, if we pray, preach, teach, celebrate the sacraments, who knows, one day somebody might be touched. It makes no theological or ecclesiological difference to me that Mrs. Concetta McGillicuddy uses artificial contraception. Straight is the way and narrow the gate; people wander and bump into the gate posts all the time. That's no reflection on the way.
Roman Catholic theologians debate the level of authority of this teaching.
Oh goodness! Of course they do. It's their job. But there's no question what the teaching is and where the average Catholic's duty lies.
But i think that if Rome still had her unBiblical civil powers, and liberals did not have so much sway in V2, then this would have a decidedly harsher understanding, as sedevacantists contend.
When Rome is falling apart and the Barbarians are at the gates and the eastern Emperor says, "I can't find anybody to run the joint, would you please take charge?" the Pope should have said, "Alaric, Schmalaric, it's not my job."
The very Biblical (in their view) Puritans had no trouble with the idea of hegemony in Massachusetts, to the distress of the Baptists. How did Calvin end up in a position where he could see to the execution of an Arminian (I THINK I have my facts right there, but I won't go to the mat.) It seems to me a little picky to get on our case for exercising civil power when nobody knew the difference between civil and ecclesiastical power or that they could be separated. It took a while to 'get' some things. It still takes a while.
If i not assumed that you would not contest the obvious, that “one of God's Divine attributes “is the ability to hear and answer infinite numbers of prayers”, Forgive me, after the tenth or so time that I go into the relationship between eternity and time and after I have already said in this exchange that the Holy Spirit clearly (I'm tempted to say "obviously") provides the unity of the Body of Christ and therefore must logically mediate communication with the saints, I tend to assume the point has been made.
That the departed can hear is speculation,
There is one body. In what other body do the members not communicate? I stub my toe, my adrenal medullae secrete adrenaline, superficial blood vessels around my body contract.
heavenly objects of intercession,
Objects of requests for intercession. GOD is the object of intercession. (Vocabulary/usage issue).
I'm going to leave the "billions of prayers" thing for somebody else. It hinges on the idea popular among some protestants that God and especially the Holy Spirit, are subject to time rather than lords over it.
I THINK the rest amounts to if we're wrong, we're REALLY wrong. True. But if we're right ...
Thank you for your kind words about my alleged honesty. If there is any in this cess-pool, it's God's gift. Let us praise Him as I praise Him for you and for your excellent posts. As to convicting of sin, would our pastor saying last week, "The ONLY THING any of us can take credit for is SIN," be enough?
blah blah blah. I wonder if this will fit in one post.