Posted on 12/28/2013 3:59:04 PM PST by NYer
According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening.
Over the past 50 years or so, a profound change, other than that effected by Vatican II, has taken place in the Catholic Church. It might be described as the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” The Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, has identified four major challenges facing the Church today. First on his list is the exodus of young adults from the Church. According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening. It represents a little less than 10 percent of the total population of this country. It also means that had those persons remained Catholic, approximately one in three Americans would be identified as Catholic. Only two religious groups represent a larger percentage of the U.S. population: Protestants (cumulatively) and current Catholics.
This phenomenon is disheartening not only for bishops and priests, but also for faithful Catholics generally. Many older Catholics are saddened at the sight of their children and grandchildren abandoning the Church.
Questions naturally arise. What has caused such a massive defection? How might one account for this phenomenon? It hardly seems possible that any single factor could explain a phenomenon of such magnitude. Various reasons for people leaving the Church are well-known. Many of them have been operative from the earliest times of Christianity. In his first letter to Timothy, St. Paul reminds him that “The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines …” (1 Tm 4:1-7). In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of dissensions and divisions among the faithful (1 Cor 1:10-16).
From the first centuries up to modern times, there have been doctrinal differences (heresies) which led to great numbers separating themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. Many others have left the Church for what can be described as practical reasons, rather than doctrinal differences.
Among the latter, there are many who separated themselves from the Church because of marriage problems. There are those who left because they became greatly dissatisfied with inadequate preaching, uninviting liturgy, and minimal hospitality in their parishes. It seems worth noting that expecting church attendance and public worship to be therapeutically satisfying often leads to disappointment and eventual alienation.
Not a few have left the Church because of real or perceived mistreatment by bishops or pastors. Reactions have a way of becoming overreactions. An overreaction to clericalism and paternalism in the Church resulted in autonomy becoming absolute. Evelyn Underhill offered a helpful analogy in this regard. She likened the Church to the Post Office. Both provide an essential service, but it is always possible to find an incompetent and annoying clerk behind the counter. Persons who expect all representatives of the Church to live up to the ideals proposed by the Church will typically become disillusioned and leave. Persons with such expectations would have left the Church of the Holy Apostles.
Most recently, a cause for many leaving the Church is the scandal of clergy sexual abuse. This has been a stumbling block not only for those directly affected, but for Catholics generally. Because of the questionable role played by a number of bishops, their moral authority is diminished. The time when bishops could command is past. Now, they can only hope to persuade and invite. Loyalty to bishops had been widely identified with loyalty to the Church. As the former loyalty diminished, so did the latter.
Clearly there are times when the Church is more of an obstacle than a help to faith. At Vatican II, the Council Fathers pointed out that the Church is always in danger of concealing, rather than revealing, the authentic features of Christ. Often enough, members of the Church’s leadership have been guilty of a sin typical of many religious teachers—namely, being more concerned about preservation of their authority than about the truth.
While specific reasons can be cited, it is helpful to recognize several underlying attitudes that are operative. (1) There is an anti-dogmatic spirit which is suspicious of the Church’s emphasis on fidelity to traditional teachings. (2) There is the widespread belief that one can be free to ignore, deny, or minimize one or more received doctrines without feeling compelled to break with the Church. (3) There is also the belief that, guided by their own conscience, regardless of how that matches—or fails to match—generally accepted Catholic teaching, persons can develop their own understanding of what it means to be Catholic. Someone has coined a phrase that describes persons with those attitudes, calling them “cafeteria Catholics,” i.e., those who pick and choose what to accept of official Catholic teaching and ignore the rest.
Two questions arise in the face of the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” One question is of a more theological and ecclesial level: are those departed to be considered heretics or schismatics? A second question arises at the practical level: how can those who have left be reunited with the Church? Regarding the first question, it is worth noting that, while speaking of dissension and division among the faithful, and of separation from the community of believers, the New Testament does not make a distinction between heresy and schism. Since the definition of the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction, it is difficult to see how there can be a schism that is not a heresy.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2089), heresy “is the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is, likewise, an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” Schism is “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” The Theological Dictionary, compiled by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, defines heresy as “primarily an error in matters of faith. The heretic takes a truth out of the organic whole, which is the faith, and because he looks at it in isolation, misunderstands it, or else denies a dogma.” “Schism occurs when a baptized person refuses to be subject to the Pope, or to live in communion with the members of the Church, who are subject to the Pope.”
In any case, given the variety of reasons for people leaving the Church, the degree of separation, and especially assuming good will on the part of those leaving, it is difficult to classify them as heretics or schismatics. Church authorities have the right and the duty to take measures against heresy and schism when those become evident. Clear denial of a dogma cannot be tolerated. But between this and a purely private, material heresy, there are many shades. Not every challenge to accepted theology is heretical. There are many partial non-identifications that endanger faith and unity but do not rise to the level of schism. Nor does every act of disobedience to human laws in the Church imply schism.
While speculative questions about heresy and schism are significant and need to be addressed, they pale in comparison to the practical question of how those departed can be reunited with the Church. That question is as complex as are the reasons for people leaving the Church. That question is further complicated when one addresses the question of the underlying attitudes that are operative.
Obviously, the Church must work at removing any obstacles to reunion. With Vatican II, that work was begun. The Council recognized the Church is semper reformanda, always needing to be reformed. The actual return of individuals requires something more than an adjustment in Church practices or new programs. It is a matter of God touching the individual with his grace.
A final question that can prove troubling is how the massive defection from the Church is to be reconciled with God’s providence. This is simply one of many instances in which we are challenged to believe in an omnipotent God, who is also a loving, provident Father. Providence is not an occasional, intrusive, manipulative presence, but one that is with us both in tragedy and in joy, in the joy that consists not so much in the absence of suffering, as in the awareness of God’s presence. To find the strength to experience calmly the difficulties and trials that come into our lives is a tremendous challenge. If, however, we are able to do that, every event can be “providential.” In a sermon on the feast of the Ascension, Pope Leo the Great said: “For those who abandon themselves to God’s providential love, faith does not fail, hope is not shaken, and charity does not grow cold.”
There can be a very subtle, almost imperceptible temptation to think we know better than God how things should be. We can be like the naive little girl, who, in her prayers, told God that if she were in God’s place, she would make the world better. And God replied: “That is exactly what you should be doing.”
“Makes no difference that a Catholic basher wants to twist scripture to conform to what he wants it to mean. “
Oh, I’m ready to fully embrace all the specific traditions Paul specified. I just need you to share them. Yet you seem not to want to share therm!
What’s with that?? Is that charitable behavior for a Christian??
Please, oh please tell me exactly what Paul referred to and give me confidence that you are correct...
Unless you don’t know. In that case, please don’t make up stuff and try to pass it off as authentic.
WHICH IS IT? DO YOU KNOW OR NOT?
amoreperfectunion:
Well, much of greek Philosophy was used to help define The Trinity, the term homoousios [Latin Consubstantial was used] was used to define Christ was being co-eternal with the Father in response to the Arian heresy condemned at the Council of Nicea and thus confirming that doctrine against Arius’s erroneous interpretation of Proverb 8:22-31 [there is one of those guys who read scripture and thought he new]. The term Hypostatic Union was used to define in the Divine Person of Christ, their is a complete Divine and Human Nature yet again, in perfect communion without distortion in Christ, which were used to reject the heresy of Nestorianism [condemned at Ephesus in 431] and the heresy of the Monophysiteas condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD.
So all those terms, Trinity, Homoousios, hypostatic union, while not found in Sacred Scripture, or Doctrinal Dogmatic definitions found in Sacred Tradition as expressed by the Church Councils I sited. They are just as binding as dogmas explicitly taught in Sacred Scripture and in fact, help the faithful “faithfully understand” those doctrines in scripture that are alluded to, but not fully articulated or defined.
“So all those terms, Trinity, Homoousios, hypostatic union, while not found in Sacred Scripture, or Doctrinal Dogmatic definitions found in Sacred Tradition as expressed by the Church Councils I sited.”
No complaint from me. These terms do not add to Scripture revelation. They summarize it in a way that prevents the introduction of error.
Thinking is crucial to summarizing the revealed truth. The terms are not inspired. They express a summary of what is revealed. They came about because the church was under attack from without and within.
And most importantly, the terms can be judged by their faithfulness to revelation. If they failed that test, I would reject them. They are consistent.
amorePerfectUnion:
But again, they are not Doctrinal Terms that are used in Sacred Scripture. In addition, they reflect the theological development of the Patristics and reflect Doctrinal definitions of the Councils not terms from the Bible and they do in fact borrow heavily from Greek Philosophy. Would you concede that is the case? None of the Definitions used at Nicea, Ephesus or Chalcedon were found in the NT.
“Would you concede that is the case? None of the Definitions used at Nicea, Ephesus or Chalcedon were found in the NT.”
Sure. And here we simply come full circle to the supremacy of God’s Word as the only judge of whether something is true. If something is Christian truth, it will pass the test as true.
None of the terms add to Scripture. No problem.
aMorePerfectUnion:
Well, it appears some of that Catholic thought has not totally left you!! From the bible alone, you can’t get those Doctrinal Definitions. That does not mean, they are inconsistent with Scripture but as you noted, you did do some studying of Church History and the entire Arian crisis started due to Arius’s interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-31 and its prefiguration to St. John’s Gospel prologue and the Word became Flesh [John 1: 1-14].
So individuals and the Bible alone can, as demonstrated in history, lead to heretical doctrines. So in my view, the Arian crisis and how the Church dealt with it reflects the Church, and the reading and understanding of the Scripture in light of the theological development within the Church as expressed via the Patristic consensus and how the Church worshiped in Liturgy, which both reflect the Tradition of the Church, all worked together at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD to resolve the Arian heresy.
The Church used both tools, the Scripture and Tradition to formulate its Doctrine against Arius and his followers. The Bible alone [Sola Scriptura] does not get you to the Nicene Creed’s Definition in Latin of Consubstantial union of Christ with the Father.
As you said there is some connection. That would be “bread” and “breaking” being the only connection.
Is there a reason the priest is the only congregant who breaks the bread? It also took many years before the cup was offered to the laity in mass.
And those fallen-away Catholics, who know better, but continue to spit in the face of God’s Pilgrim Church on Earth, will be the first to bust hell wide open.
Always guilt-ridden, fallen-away Catholics that just can’t leave well enough alone. They have to constantly justify turning away from Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. If they have this much guilt, why did they leave in the first place?
“We’d still be saved even if the Catholic church didn’t exist because GOD is the one who ensures that His word is spread and souls are saved”
You know His Word because of that CATHOLIC DOCUMENT known as the Holy Bible.
I stand up for and profess the One, True, Church, and that Church is the Catholic Church. Deal with it. It’s fact.
redleghunter:
That would be because only the Apostles were there at the Last Supper, so the command to do this in Memory of Me was a general command for all to participate, but only the Apostles were there and commissioned to celebrate the Eucharist. The debate over presbyters [elders] and Bishops in the NT and whether there was a clear distinguishing of their roles is legitimate. The charge that elder does not mean priest is not true. Elder literally means and older man, that is true, but what where the elders charged with doing. It was clear in the NT that certain men had “hands laid on them” when being charged with being a presbyter or Bishop. Still, these Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons are charged by the Apostles or by men charged by the Apostles. For example, the laying of hands is associated with being charged for leadership and ministry throughout the NT [Acts 6:6, Acts 13:2-3 [Paul and Barnabas were commissioned by laying of hands]; 1 Tim 4:14; 1 Tim 5:22 [warns about hastily ordaining anyone]; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:5]. Still, we do see that it is the overseer [Bishop] who appoints presbyters/elders as it was St. Paul who laid hands on Titus who was charged with laying hands on other men [elders, i.e. older men] for the service of the Church. Now, the Laying on of Hands is visible sign of what is going on and that is it is the Holy Spirit who institutes one to the ordained ministry [Acts 20:28]
Finally, St. Peter in his First Letter [1 Pet 5:1-5] addresses the elders as a fellow elder. As Pope Benedict notes in his work Principles of Catholic Theology [p. 279], the office of Apostle, which Peter was, and now presbyter, which those he was addressing were, are now interchangeable. Benedict then states this is the strongest linkage between the theology of Apostle to the presbyter. Now, this passage does not mean Peter was just another presbyter, he was an Apostle and as St. Paul stated, the Apostles were first in authority [1 Cor 12:28] and Peter was mentioned First in the order of the Apostles [Mt 10:2] and of course he along was given the keys [Mt 16:16-18] and tend to all the flock [John 21:15-17].
So the theology of priest [presbyter] is connected to Apostle and they share in the Apostles ministry. Now, the Apostles were the only ones at the Last Supper [Luke 22:14-20; Mark 14:22-26, Matthew 26:26-30], they were the only ones given authority to forgive sins in Christ name [Mt 18:18, Jn 20:21-23] and the 11 [Judas not there anymore] were charged with the great commission to go and baptize, etc [Matthew 28: 19-20] and in James 5:14-20 we see the command to call the presbyters [elders] to have them Annoint the sick with oil and hear confession.
So for the Sacraments, noted above, what the Greek Orthodox call “Divine Mysteries”, you have to have one validly ordained and appointed to celebrate and minister those sacraments [Mysteries]. St Paul, when speaking of the ministry of the Apostles states “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the Mysteries of God” [1 Cor 4:1]. The Greek Word Mystery was translated by St. Jerome as “sacramentum” which is where the English word sacrament comes from, which as Augustine defined, is a visible sign of God’s invisible Grace.
So it is only the Apostles who can celebrate the Mysteries [Baptism, Eucharist, Confession, Annointing] and those that they appoint to do so like Titus, Timothy, etc., and those that were appointed by men like Titus and Timothy to perform those ministries. Thus, all Laypersons can’t be the minister of the sacraments noted above. The only minister of a sacrament that is not ordained is Holy Matrimony, where the Man and Woman exchanging the vow [oath] of fidelity to each other, although in the case of emergency, it is permissible for a lay Catholic person to administer the sacrament of Baptism, in the Trinitarian formula of course.
So how did this understanding move from the end of the 1st century to the 2nd and beyond, well start with the Didache, written Circa late 1st Century, it says On the Lord’s Day, gather together and Break Bread and give thanks [Eucharist] and confess your sins so your sacrifice may be pure. It goes on to say, that the Christian community should Elect Bishops and Deacons that are men worthy of the Lord to serve you in the ministry...
In an earlier post, I cited St. Clement’s Letter to the Church at Corinth, which had gone in schism [2 Letters from St. Paul and they still had problems]. In it he pointed out that the Apostles had appointed men worthy of ministry as Bishop and that these men had then appointed successors, etc. Clement continues saying that we [Church of Rome] considers it unjust if these men are removed from ministry adding that Our Sin would not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices [Clement Chapter 44]. In chapter 47, he again calls the Corinthians to heal the schism saying that it is Shameful and unworthy of your training in Christ that one or two persons in the well established Church at Corinth is in revolt against the presbyters.
So the theology present in the Didache and Clement of Rome is that there are validly appointed Men who have the authority to minister in all things, including celebrate the Eucharist which the Didache indicates and Clement [offer the sacrifices]
http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/Luke_22:19-20
http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/Mark_14:22-25
http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/Matthew_26:26
http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/Matthew_26:27-29
Also, I have linked the Veritas Catholic Bible site that has St. Thomas Aquinas’s Patristic Commentary. The passages I have linked are the ones related to the Last Supper [Eucharist] and you will see a theme that the Eucharist and Priesthood are connected via the connection to the Apostles.
Hence, no Catholic Layperson has the authority to celebrate a Eucharist and I may add, this is the same exact teaching in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Why on earth would you deny yourself the grace of Holy Communion because some politician or the other is damaging his or her own soul by taking Communion while in a state of sin? Instead of hating the Church for the actions of a few, why not pray for those politicians, and other Catholics who believe as they do, to have a conversion of heart. You could do that at Mass, while preparing yourself to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Let God judge those who are rejecting Him. You don't want to be among those, do you, even though it's for other reasons?
Why would you let what those people do influence you? It isn't the Eucharist that's causing those people to be mean and ugly. Are those same people in line for the Confessional on a regular basis? I'd venture to say they are not. Reminds me of what my mother told my older brother when he said he didn't want to go to Church, because there were so many hypocrites there. She just said, well, they're right where they NEED to be!
If people are going to reject Jesus in their regular lives, receiving Him in the Sacrament of Holy Communion on a Sunday isn't going to help them much.
Your description was indeed popeless, and i did not say the pope changed Catholic teaching, but he can be looked to for the final word, and has doctrinally perpetuated errors, and has unhindered power, and cannot be deposed without his consent.
Erroneous.
I did not restrict his primacy to PI, nor do the EO's in contending against his full roman role.
I do not read pointless and vague acronyms, and the rest of this is irrelevant.
It is indeed a distinction with a difference, as rather than being good enough to enter purgatory, as you had me saying, it is a purported place for becoming purified.
Contradictory, and irrelevant.
A mere assertion. Purgatory is what i said it was, a place one becomes good enough to enter glory.
No, it isn't.
after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030).
This contradicts your own point.
You seem to be having a problem following the argument. go back and re read it.
No. It was incomprehensible. Example is not a verb, and it only goes downhill from there.
What you imagine may assume you...
Nothing is assuming me. I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
It is actually hard to exaggerate the role and power of the pope and magisterium more than Rome and popes or Catholics have or do, either in establishing doctrine or enforcing it, or in application etc. .
Assertion is not fact. The rest of the cut and paste I will pass over.
No, it is not as the Presidential limitations. Who will impeach the pope if he oversteps his bounds?
Who will impeach the Supreme court justice? An irrelevant point.
You have gone from describing a popeless Catholicism with no mention of the magisterium to now having to minimizing his claim to unhindered excise of power.
Interesting, false and irrelevant.
No, i called you that because in your description of the church and how it acts in passing on doctrine you did not even mention the pope, or the place of the magisterium.
Quite amusing. Of course, as I have stated, unlike those attacking the Church I have no need of inserting papal prerogatives into every discussion of Catholic life. Why is that? Because I have a balanced and historically sound view of the faith. If you are obsessed with popes, by all means write about them, but I am only interested in responding to those issues which are related to the actual topic under discussion. As for my original point regarding the war on tradition and the effect it has had on Mass attendance, I believe I have covered it quite clearly. I have even responded to any meaningful, and many less than meaningful, questions which have arisen from those original comments. There is nothing new in any of this. You are merely repeating your already refuted claims.
Well, that certainly would be news to the Jews who wrote the Old Testament.
The fact that the Catholic church dishonestly claims responsibility for the OT which it did NOT write, gives anyone plenty of reason to suspect their claims of having written the NT as well.
IOW, if they lied about one, they're just as likely to lie about the other.
You really have no defense so there is no need to continue. You are repeating your already refuted claims.
Then why not provide the link as you are supposed to, unless perhaps you do not want anyone to see that this is part of a polemic which actually refutes the idea that being the steward of Scripture amounts to being its assured interpreter.
And if that is not your argument, then what is the purpose behind the constant "we gave you the Bible" assertion?
Context and literary form is critical in examining quotes, else you can be like atheists who charge the Lord with sanctioning dishonestly by His commendation of the unjust steward, (Lk. 16:1-8) or calling no man at all "father." And Luther was very polemical and much a user of hyperbole, and of acerbic or sarcastic language, which was a custom among many .
And another one is when he was charged with adding the word “alone” to St. Paul’s writings, he reportedly said.. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all... [taken from Catholic Answers site, don’t have a protestant source for this one]
Which is another quote that you need to examine to see what Luther the what and why of what Luther said, unless you want to be like the rest of FR RCs who uncritically cut and paste parroted RC sites.
For Luther, do a site search at same site, (like site:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all) as Swan, who debates RCs, has made it a practice to track down such to their original sources.
And by so doing you can see that Luther was not alone in adding "alone,
“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”
Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
See further :
And Luther gives his reasoning behind adding "alone," which is actually sound, and practice RC Bibles have engaged in.
“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
Secondly, your quote "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so..." in context is part of a polemic which states,
“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing." …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”
“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot...
As Swan states,
One can almost feel Luther’s anger towards his Papal critics. They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.
Finally, we actually find the RC preoccupation with Luther perplexing, as if we held him as some sort of pope, or necessary to validate our faith, while he was far more Catholic than we are. But our unity is due to an shared conversion by faith in the risen Christ of Scripture, and Scripture based relationship and walk with Him, not by looking to an exalted man overall, or faith and security in a church.
hey, I told you the site where I found the quote, you go read the protestant polemics with their commentary. Not interested in it.
I’m glad we agree on the truth of the nature of the Savior.
“The Church used both tools, the Scripture and Tradition to formulate its Doctrine”
Not so much. That anyone leaves out part of the truth of Scripture is the degree to which they create a falsehood. The entire truth has always been there. Tradition did not resolve this issue in history. It was resolved by reasoning through the entire revelation about His nature.
Almost every major doctrine of Christianity was accepted because it answered the most questions and raised the fewest problems in its expression. In this instance, how Jesus Christ could be both God and man. It was answered by reasoning out the totality of what is revealed in the Bible - not by appealing to some tradition.
As a side note... Does this mean we have every major doctrine perfectly right?? No, not necessarily. It means that out of every possible way to put together the totality of what we know from Scripture, the historic church chose the expression that best fit and created the fewest problems.
God revealed what He wanted us to know - not everything He knows. We see through a mirror dimly, but in that future we will see as He sees.
In the meantime God has gifted to His Gathering teachers, among others. They not only present truth, but they correct error.
And for the record, I have seen that list of quotes you site and the same argument. Cardinal Bellarmine was Jesuit and indeed a leading Theologian against the Protestant Schismatics of the 16th century. Dr. Taylor Marshall, a former Anglican Priest, who has a blog called Cantebury Tales that I frequent, actually put together a response to this years ago.
http://taylormarshall.com/2010/10/did-church-fathers-teach-justification.html
Nothing new here and no, none of those guys taught Luthers Doctrine of Justification and they certainty did not teach Calvin’s Penal Substitution Forensic Imputation doctrine.
All of the Fathers you sited believed in the Sacraments, believed Baptismal regeneration, real presence of the Eucharist, had strong views on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, believed in the communion of the Saints, heck Augustine was the one who came up with the term purgatory, were Catholic in their ecclesiology, etc, etc.
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.