IS
IGNORANCE,
EVERYTHING
STARTS
TO
LOOK
IGNORANT!
Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Today’s New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.
The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.
The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.
The Times writers show their bias with their flippant observation that when he might have been fighting sexual abuse, during the 1980s and 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger was more prominent in his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. But then, while until 2001 it was not clear which Vatican office was primarily responsible for sexual abuse, it was clear that the CDF was responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is merely wrong; it is comically absurd.
During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years.
So how does the Times have the temerity to suggest that the diocesan bishops needed to educate the Vatican on the proper handling of this issue? The lead witness for the Times story is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: a former auxiliary of the Sydney, Australia archdiocese, who was hustled into premature retirement in 2004 at the age of 66 because his professed desire to change the teachings of the Catholic Church put him so clearly at odds with his fellow Australian bishops and with Catholic orthodoxy. This obscure Australian bishop, the main source of support for the absurd argument advanced by the Times, is the author of a book on Christianity that has been described as advancing “the most radical changes since Martin Luther started the 16th-century Reformation.” His work has drawn an extraordinary caution from the Australian episcopal conference, which warned that Robinson was at odds with Catholic teaching on “among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching." Bishop Robinson is so extreme in his theological views that Cardinal Roger Mahony (who is not ordinarily known as a stickler for orthodoxy) barred him from speaking in the Los Angeles archdiocese in 2008. This, again, is the authority on which the Times hangs its argument against the Vatican.
And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:
Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.
An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.
That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:
“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage has already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.
The verse, Eph. 2:10, does not say "God ordained that He will walk in what He ordained". The verse says, He ordains, you walk.
Ordaining something is not the same as doing something. Just consult your wife's To Do list.
God wanted him to preach to Nineveh. Jonah didn't want to. Who won? Jonah did the good works that God ordained for him to do.
But God did not violate Jonah's free will. He set up a trial for Jonah and in the end Jonah chose to go and preach as God commanded. Previously, he chose not to go. Clearly he was capable of either choice.
If you don't separate faith and good works, you wouldn't have the man-made dogma of salvation being by faith alone. Yet that is the cornerstone of Protestantism, an it sure separates faith from good works.
The separation is for salvation purposes only. In faith and practice the two go together. Grace through faith is what saves, AND THEN, we are able to do the good works which God has prepared US to do:
Who is the "we" in verse 10? The context says it refers to the saved only. It includes only the "you" who have been already saved (in verse 8) and Paul. Only the elect were created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which have been prepared.
Note also the phrase "IN Christ Jesus". When were we believers created IN Christ Jesus? At conception? No of course not. We were born under original sin and not yet in Christ Jesus. We were created in Christ Jesus when our hearts were regenerated and we came to faith. So again, only the saved were created to do good works. AND the saved WILL do good works, or else God's gift of a new heart is defective.
So yes, on the one hand we distinguish what saves from what comes later. On the other hand, we believe that if God says He created His elect to be in Christ Jesus and do good works, then His say so is good and true. This is contrasted against the Catholic view that rejects salvation by grace through faith and relies also on works as a separate and independent requirement for salvation. That is the distinction I was making. Just out of curiosity, who do you say is being referenced by "we" in verse 10, and when and how do you think we are created in Christ Jesus such that Eph. 2:8-10 still makes sense?
This false doctrine has severe moral implications as it impedes sanctification through the contact with the Holy Gospel, the only means of sanctification that remains in the Protestant communities of faith.
My understanding is that we see sanctification very differently, with Catholics seeing it as growth toward salvation and we see it as growth after salvation. Even so, growth is not at all impeded under Sola Fide. In fact, it is enhanced.
Those holding to Sola Fide understand that we do not earn our salvation even in part by the quantity and quality of the works we do. We do not believe in ownership of any sort of "infused" righteousness that makes us capable of choosing to try to pass the test. No, we know that our salvation is not of our own righteousness given to us but rather what only belongs to Christ, His righteousness. So our reliance is on the finished work of Christ rather than our own unfinished work.
Therefore, which believer is in the better position to grow? I'd say it is the believer who understands that all is from Christ and none is from ourselves. Our focus is only on Christ, not on ourselves and our works. We trust and know that God will keep His promises to His children and sanctify us:
I think that one who believes that it is God alone who sanctifies, as opposed to one who believes it is some sort of cooperative effort, is in a much better position to actually accept and appropriate gifts of truth and learning from God because the focus is centered and solely upon God. That means our sanctification will be higher when looking at the Holy Gospel since our only focus is on God and not our own contributions. To every extent I rely upon myself and my good works for growth (sanctification) I divert attention away from God. What have I to learn from myself that is good? Nothing. But focused on God only, there is an abundance.
The separation between real faith and declared but empty (St. James says, "dead") faith is a valid distinction, you would agree.
Yes, but I do not think declared necessarily means real. As I understand Catholicism declared faith IS real until forfeited by failure to pass the test. With real faith the test is already passed BY Christ, not us.
The separation between real faith and good works is heretical and is condemned at Trent:
Actually, this particular curse does not refer to us Reformed since we do not believe we are prepared and disposed by the movement of our own will. We are prepared and disposed by the movement of HIS will alone.
Thanks very much for all your info in reply. Points to a lot of difficulties in translation - in addition to the obvious time and cultural ones.
Metanoia seems cheapened by equating to today’s “change of mind.”
I remember in Genesis something like God repented that he had created man. Are you familiar with what that is, metanoia again or..? Then I guess that would be further complicated by being first translated into Greek.
thanks again..
Right now I have several choices how to spend my Friday afternoon. No one compells me to post stuff about Catholicism on FR day in, day out. It is something I choose to do.
The wish, that you also mention, to NOT have all that free will is echoed in this familiar prayer: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven". Or, "remove this chalice from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt".
Yes. And we remain how we have been made, endowed with free will. If the free will, hypothetically, had been removed in the Fall, then, first, we would have no explanation for this parade of good man - bad man doublets in the Bible, starting with Cain and Abel and all the way through the parables of Christ and Pauline letters.
So far as Christian Unity is concerned, you will find me wondering why the Allies in Europe could have common purpose despite different "command groups" and defeat a common enemy, but that Christianity seems impotent in that regard.
Maybe that is not what God wants for His disciples. He wants doctrinal unity (John 17). Loose likemindedness is not to His liking.
We can cooperate, of course, for example, on life issues. But ideas have consequences. One who believes in autonomous self-guided churches, total depravity of man, once-saved-always-saved faith-alone soteriology will form his social conscience differently than a Catholic who rejects all three.
Regarding multidimensional time, we can wax mathematical and develop such concepts, but as far as human experience goes, we are creatures in time and unidimensional time at that. If we want to describe God using a multidimensional time analogy, we can. It will be one metaphore among many that we use. When the Bible has God walking in the cool of the evening going "Adam, Adam, where art thou?" that is helpful metaphore as well.
The ontological fact remains that God is outside of time in principle, regardless of what exactly, is time. He is outside of it if it is single dimension, and He is outside of it if it is 12-dimensional, or 1.41-dimensional. He is outside of it because He created it, such as it is.
Regarding human existence, as well, we know that we exist in eternity. Are we destined for life outside of time? The scripture does not say, but St. Thomas Aquinas speculated that at the Second Coming the movement of the stars and planets will stop, which is to say, time will stop also. (Question 91. The quality of the world after the judgment, see item 2)
Well put.
Wouldn't he know that from the start (given that he chose him for a,specific purpose)? Instead it sound like he had to "find out."
That would a devil, not THE Devil.
That is not a given. καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς [no article] διάβολός ἐστιν
leaving out the article altogether which is translated as "a devil". But we find the same grammatical form by the same author in John 1:1
καὶ [no article] θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
which should be consistently translated as "a god" instead of [the] God (as it would read in Greek since Greek has definite articles for proper names) and since he was with (pros) God, and therefore not God. I realize that this is also Arian argument, which doesn't make it any less consistent or logical.
But it really makes no difference if Judas was a demon (devil) possessed man all along, or if he became Satan-possessed at the Last Supper, the important thing is that either way he would not be able to exercise his free will.
Some of us are not able to read the mind of God so perfectly that we can say what He would do under all circumstances and events.
No need to. Luke 13:3, 5 says "unless you repent you will likewise perish." See also Luke 15:7, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" and in 15:10 he says "I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."
Luke 17:3-4 says outright that repentance calls for forgiveness "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him"
Luke 24:17 "and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."
Acts 3;19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away"
Rom 2:4, 2 Cor 7:9 God grants repentance (it's not free will!)
2 Cor 7:10 "For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret leading to salvation."
In other words, the reason the Greek doesn't use metanoia in the case of Judas is because Got did not grant repentance to Judas. To those to whom God grants repentance and they repent, God forgives. Those who repent have been granted the opportunity to be saved.
Without God's permission, they cannot repent. No free will involved, and the Greek text makes that obvious by grammatically staying with the appropriate word (metomellomai) inappropriately translated in KJV as repent, instead of metanoia.
“No human being is a clean vessel.” That's what I call nit picking. and it deserves no further.
Because it's true and orthodox. truth can be nit picking. It's still true.
Well, we, who are MERE MORTALS, find reading John's motives, John's unstated motives, from a distance of 2000 years more difficult than you might, but as I say, we're mere mortals.
Some mere mortals can read Greek and understand. :) Other mere mortals read crappy translations that have become entrenched as traditions of men (KJV) and are revered over the original language. Easy does it...
Faith alone is insufficient. No works, no repentance. No repenatnce, no salvation. Simple.
talk..good..make man not like monkey..
Of course, I'm very pleased when people wax mathematical because, to me, the unreasonable effectiveness of math in the natural sciences (Wigner) is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.
And trying to get a glimpse of the structure of the universe, for me, is as breath-taking as considering the magnificent images taken by the Hubble telescope.
But, more importantly, thinking about these things helps me to keep my priorities straight.
God has made a hundred billion people so far and I'm just one of them. That's like a drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool or one star in the Milky Way galaxy.
Moreover, I'm essentially a blind drop of water. All I can see is from my own eyes. I cannot see what you see. I cannot really understand. And no matter how much my stubbed toe hurts, I know I'm not the center of the universe.
So contemplating all of this magnifies in my meditations on Who God IS - because He does see "all that there is" all at once. He sees what we see. And He really does understand.
To us a big deal, but not to God.
God's Name is I AM
Jesus did see when Judas started going bad though there's no indication that was when chosen.
Without the article “a devil” and yes, a given considering the context and the rest of the Gospels. Judas was not “THE Devil”
“But it really makes no difference if Judas was a demon (devil) possessed man all along, or if he became Satan-possessed at the Last Supper, the important thing is that either way he would not be able to exercise his free will.”
Repeating a conclusion that you cannot show to be so doesn't make it true.
In none of those Scriptures quoted does it say God “grants” repentance. Repent is something people do, God may or may not forgive as He sees fit but still no “grant”.
For example what in either 2 Cor. 7:9,10 or Rom. 2:4 says repentance is a “grant” from God?
Yes I am. The Septuagint verison of 6:6 does not have "regret" or "repent" in it, but uses "enthumeomai" which means to ponder. However in 6:7 it does say that God regretted/was sorry ("metomelomai") for creating man.
But, no, God does not "repent" in Gen 6:6-7 either in Hebrew or in Greek.
The Bible says that Judas was possessed. If he was possessed by a devil or the devil he wa snot free to exercise his will. Isn't that what being possessed means?
In none of those Scriptures quoted does it say God “grants” repentance
Okay it says so in Acts 5:31, 11:18, and 2 Tim 2:22. Still having doubts?
"Extratemporal" is, perhaps the closest "prefabricated" single word I've found to describe my concept of God's relationship to time. But the idea of God being merely "outside of time in principle, regardless of what exactly, is time" is woefully inadequate. Not only is He "outside of" time, He is "any and everywhere within time", simultaneously.
Perhaps the term that most closely fits are, "unbound to time and space" or, perhaps, "unconstrained by time and space".
So, until someone comes up with a single word that describes God as
"everywhere beyond, omnipresent within, unconstrained by and unbound to time and space -- in all their possible dimensions...",I suppose we will have to "make do" with His own description of Himself:
“So, until someone comes up with a single word that describes God as:”
“everywhere beyond, omnipresent within, unconstrained by and unbound to time and space — in all their possible dimensions...”,
The word is Holy. It encompasses His distance and His closeness and yet preserves His “otherness”.
Isa. 57:15, “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.”
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.