Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[Gamecock]

Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect.  Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness.  Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis.  Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion.  For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes.  It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics.  Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.

Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press.  This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.

One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative.  This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.

A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.  

I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy.  Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.

Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.  The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries. 

Never mind.  Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say  - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams. 

Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.  

Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority.  After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.  

Forget it.  Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.  

Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.  These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer.   One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  

Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.  

As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.

Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy.  What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid.  The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up. 

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter.  And why stop there?  We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure.  They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.  At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.

Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.

Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.

The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.   

Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves.  Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before.  One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.

Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure.  Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.

[boatbums]

These types of threads seem to be the most contentious.

Yes, these "types" never seem to actually discuss the topic of the OP but quickly get sidetracked into repetitive arguments that rarely settles a matter. I think it is a common tactic to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable truths.

[boatbums]

My impression of “Biblical” prayer is far more about what is in each individual pray-er's heart intention than the words he chooses. Sometimes, words are not even necessary. Droning on in repetitive, communal prayer probably bores God more than it does the congregation.

[af_vet_1981]

Many Protestant churches do, and one can, but the Lord did not teach us to pray the "Our Father" as being a formal prayer, and in fact He preceded it by stating, when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, but distinctly said,

Good, I was not aware of that. Which Prot churches say this prayer in their assembly ? The Our Father is the only case of which I'm aware that the disciples asked him to teach them how to pray and his teaching was specifically recorded as inspired Scripture. I don't think it can be improved on, but if you do, and have faith to do so, improve on it. It should be written in my heart. I should say it daily, as the Spirit of God brings it to mind, loving God with all my heart, soul, and strength. That would never be a vain repetition, but rather

O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth : That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

And it came to pass , that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased , one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray , as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray , say , Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come . Thy will be done , as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

I think Joel Osteen has to squeeze this in at the end of every hour; it seems strained and somewhat vain to me when he does it.

Joel Osteen and Bill Graham Sinner's Prayer Examples
• Here's a simple prayer you can say: (If you say this and mean it in your heart you will be saved and understand why we believe what we do.) "Dear God I know I'm a sinner, I know I am not where I want to be, and I want your forgiveness! I believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for my sins. Please wash me clean from all sin, shame, and guilt, come into my life Jesus to be my Lord and Savior. I ask this in your name Jesus. Amen!" If you prayed that prayer then we believe you are saved.
• PRAYER How to Pray: Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior. In Your Name. Amen.

I view these types of "Sinner's Prayers" as a Protestant/Evangelical religious tradition. They have an appearance of being scriptural (sort of like Gospel Music) but fall short of inspired Scripture. They don't seem right to me. What do you think ?

I don't think Messiah taught us to pray to himself everyday. I don't think it is wrong. I think we can call on him in spirit and truth. He taught us to pray to God the Father. I find that significant and worthy of my attention and respect. God is One. The Son always honors the Father. The mother always points to the Son.

[daniel1212]

In 211 it is clear that Salvation is speaking of the Vulgate as the original to Douay, which renders Luke 1:28 correctly;

No, that is not clear or correct. Indeed it helps if you are going to post opinions to acquaint yourself with the nature of the controversy and the text of the relevant posts before opining. And the issue was what the correct rendering is, and her reference to the "original Latin" being "the original English translation" (though that was actually the Wycliff Bible from the Vulgate), infers that this "original Latin" was the "original language" that Lk. 1:28 was written in.

As the issue was what Lk. 1:28 really says, then referring to "original Latin" is misleading, unless she made it clear that she considers this superior to or definitive of the Greek, which she did not.

And what the Greek says is that both Mary as well as all believers (Lk. 1:28; Eph. 1:6) are "graced," (kecharitōmenē from the Greek word charitoō) being used to describe both, and all generations are to call Mary blessed among [en] women .

But the only one (though in some mss Stephen, in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT.

Where does the [Roman] Catholic church teach that Gregory "wrote as the Holy Spirit dictated to him"?

Nowhere: I was pointing out the detail of the image I posted.

More than that. You were objecting to my statement that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the writers of Scripture to write in Latin, as stating that "nothing else the prelates and doctors of the Holy Church wrote is inspired," or that "specifically what they wrote in Latin is not inspired." Which "opinions of yours" you said were not the faith of the Church.

Thus it is evident these opinions were what you were objecting to, and you followed with, "Gregory the Great writing as the Holy Spirit dictates to him."

It is obvious the latter is in response to my opinions you objected to, as being contrary to prelates and doctors of the Holy Church being inspired of God, by which is meant being inspired so that the Holy Spirit dictates to him, unless you post irrelevant pictures. And as the context of my remark was obviously Divine inspiration of Scripture, then it infers you are supporting Gregory as one (among others) that wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture.

So back to questions. Do you hold that such men as Gregory (among others wrote under Divine inspiration as with the writers of Scripture?

Do you hold that Popes in speaking infallibly also do so, or that God is otherwise the author of these infallible statements, so that it is a Divine document as Scripture is?

That is the difference between Protestants posting their thoughts and ideas, typically quite heretical and without authority other than inside their own heads.

Actually, RCs example how adept they are at variously interpreting Rome among themselves, as it appears you are, lacking an infallible interpreter for their infallible interpreter.

Try to respond with clarity, and without obfuscation and your usual recourse to insults.

[daniel1212]

up thread the mod specifically wrote that I can’t post links to threads. I’m just betting that your post with a thread link won’t get pulled even though mine did. I’m just betting.

I do not think he said you cannot post links to threads, or even certain posts which is done quite often and can be helpful as informative, but that we are not to post links to continue a debate from another thread, but to go back and deal with it there.

That is hard not to do when dealing with a poster who uses the same tactics from thread to thread which you object to as it degrades the level of debate, but they deny it, or denies he/she said something contrary to what they now assert, but i think the intent is to stop crossover personal debates.

[boatbums]

Little Rock, AR, Sep 27, 2007 / 02:17 pm (CNA).- In its 165 years of existence, the Diocese of Little Rock had never experienced its members being excommunicated, that is, until recently. Six sisters in Hot Springs, Arkansas were automatically excommunicated due to their participation in the Community of the Lady of All Nations, or more commonly called, the Army of Mary.

Hmmmm...would the "League of Mary" also qualify?

[BlueDragon]

In 211 it is clear that Salvation is speaking of the Vulgate as the original to Douay, which

Yes -- that was clear enough to me, which was I pointed out that very aspect to you, which is how the discussion over a particular verse went a bit sideways, and where seeing a statement made by daniel1212 in the midst of such as that (dan-the-man, or dan-the-freeperman I may refer to him,in the future) brought reply from yourself.

Now as to the related discussion there --- and I knew you would go there --- I saw it all as it unfolded, and knew the solution just as I saw the problems as they arose also.

So the lecturing tone taken towards myself is both superfluous and not needful, nor helpful either to myself at this juncture.

As I had asked of you;

Where does the [Roman] Catholic church teach that Gregory "wrote as the Holy Spirit dictated to him"?

stressing there in bold the word dictated which as I did take pains to point out, holds a particular meaning, particularly in regards to canon -- for if a thing be dictated and thus faithfully recorded, and those words coming from and/or by the Holy Spirit, then that would make the writing be equal to the being word of God, resulting in some unspecified document being written by Gregory as direct transcription of the same.

Yet as to where the Church teaches that Gregory wrote as dictated by the Holy Spirit, you replied to me;

Nowhere: I was pointing out the detail of the image I posted.

So it was YOU who was "pointing out the detail". Am I getting that correct?

Now beneath the image (of an ornate carving) displayed in your own comment #312 were the exact words;

Gregory the Great writing as the Holy Spirit dictates to him

which I initially took to be your own words of description.

Checking a bit more thoroughly while composing here reply, I see that the image is separate from the words both above and below the image, as they are also when using my browser and opening "view image info", copying from there it's location, and opening it in another window or tab, there is the image only, with no textual information included with the image itself as it would visibly appear. All of which confirms that it was you who wrote the words seen below the image in reply #312, or if not, would leave only a copy/paste function for the sentence isolated from the image, which would have necessitated being deliberately undertaken in regards to the textual information (below the image) all of which would results in having you, yourself making or presenting claim that this Gregory the Great (otherwise known as St. Gregory I, who was indeed once the bishop of Rome --thus a Latin church "pope") was as was being depicted in the ornate carving (a wonderful and masterful carving it is) again copy/pasting directly from the words found beneath that image, indicated by you to be; "... writing as the Holy Spirit dictated"

But now you seem to be telling me you are not saying that the Holy Spirit was dictating what Gregory was depicted to being then writing...but that, as you now say when called on it, and what was conveyed as "truth" concerning the image and the words both; ;

Art has its own language and is there to educate, in this case, about the inspired nature of Pope Gregory's work.

So now -- it's more "art" which "has it's own language" but the "dictated by the Holy Spirit" language or words initially put there by YOU -- are now also backed away from by referring to is as being merely "inspired".

Where in the "language of Art" (capital "A" art, we should all take note) is there some difference between "dictated by" and "inspired by" that could apply those meanings being so interchangeable in regards to the Holy Spirit itself?

I don't think there is such a consideration -- even in "the language of Art". Stop making things up, and own up to your own words -- and what those words mean.

Then --- you could well enough (and simply enough --easy-peasy, no problemo whatsoever in regards to my own self) more openly admit first that the word dictate went too far (for as you confessed, the church ecclesiastical body which is the Roman Catholic church does not teach Gregory wrote "by dictate of the Holy Spirit", after which you could then adjust your own words to the lesser "inspired".

There is significant difference between the two words "dictate" and "inspire", as I took the trouble to stress & underline.

Why is this so difficult? It's always like this. All this squirming around. It is why I need write like a prosecuting attorney -- to keep people from wriggling away from their own words -- or shifty-shift pretending they don't meqan what they obviously enough do -- and the tow words in question --- holding precise theological definition and usages. They are NOT interchangeable.

Even when or if we use the phrase "inspired by the Holy Spirit" only in regards to Gregory, the question there remains -- does this inspiration of the Holy Spirit (no less) extend to all which he wrote? Every letter? How about every sermon-like teaching of Gregory's (of which there are more than a few that have been transmitted down to us in this day) of which I can read for myself -- thanks to Protestants like Schaff there at the last mile of transmission-line. Not all of those one would think (after reading them) would fully lend themselves to being among "inspired" written works, but more precisely while we are still being generous enough toward the man (hopefully) most all would be better classified as written by a man informed by faith and tradition, and I would like to add (in my own opinion) informed and influenced by the Holy Spirit. Thus are the doctors more accurately spoken of (in official RCC teachings) or so I have been led to believe, rather than spoken of as writing under the[direct] inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for terminology such as "influenced and led by" has definition varying and being something lesser than as directly "inspired"much less "as dictated by".

If there is a problem with that -- then we will return to Gregory and what he did write, to investigate in close detail what he wrote that would be so problematic for papists -- if you insist on terming all of his writings "inspired".

Your choice. Choose carefully.

To return to your own reply towards myself, in your own closing communication -- after speaking of yourself posting to the FR RF,

"...the teaching of the Catholic Church as I understand it."

you have the nerve to speak of Protestants

"... posting their thoughts and ideas, typically quite heretical and without authority other than inside their own heads."

The very phrase which in my initial reply to you concerning the words which you included as informational & instructive beneath the image --- came not from the RCC as to their own regard -- but from your own mind, from "inside your own head". Is that not true?

Unless you be bringing whatever it is from the RCC magesterium in words found there --- then your own arguments would themselves be "coming from your head" if just to suffer rewrite.

As you did say --- you write much as to the teachings "as you understand them".

But after terming dan-the-man an "internet babbler" fail to show yourself in actuality any better -- for daniel quite often sources his work well, leaving himself to be bringing support for the greater bulk of what he writes, but may have been wandering somewhat in his conversation with the other poster -- who had by slight mis-worded mistake of her own (entirely forgivable) had begun the distraction...

By which I mean -- if he is a "babbler" any beyond the single consideration he was momentarily mistaken for -- but admitted to some error allowing himself to be corrected -- then what does that make yourself, when having committed a possible slight (one word out of place -- not belonging --- put in place of another more precise but still questionable in application -- even according to RCC teachings and attitudes towards "doctors" who inform, but themselves not write that which be equal in inspiration to such as Paul's writings, in comparison OF "inspiration") but a yet worse babbler who himself misleads by writing from "the thoughts in his own head" but will scarcely admit to being in error when called on it? Dictated by The Holy Spirit -- "the language of Art" my foot.

In other words -- get real. I'm not interested in the continual self-justification act. Just stick with the info, and spare the broad-brush insult commentary so that I not be continually forced to respond also to that, which is just so much your own opinions coming across as flame-bait.

[daniel1212]

Copyists probably not, and I did not mention them. I think my post is sufficiently clear as it is written. If you have a serious question I'll be glad to answer.

If it was clear then i would not have asked the questions i did. I will expand on this in responding to the other post you made to me today.

[boatbums]

One more thing...the "Army of Mary" group was NOT excommunicated for worshiping Mary but because:

The movement believes that its 92-year-old founder, Marie Paule Giguère, is the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary,[3] in open contrast not only with the Catholic belief that reincarnation does not exist, but more specifically that Mary was assumed soul and body into heaven by God, and therefore Mary's soul is not separate from her body, so that if she were to appear, it would have to be as herself, not as a reincarnation.

Father Eric Roy, superior general of the Sons of Mary, an affiliate of the "Army of Mary", said Giguère has not claimed to be the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, and that the 92-year-old Quebec woman "receives graces" from the Virgin Mary and God. "The Virgin Mary took possession of her soul. I would rather say it that way," said Roy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Mary

From http://www.catholicdoors.com/isit/isit11.htm

The presumed private revelation upon which the Army of Mary bases its claim to legitimacy does in fact introduce new and erroneous doctrines about the Virgin Mary and her role in the economy of salvation history. It significantly adds to Christ's definitive Revelation. It would have its followers believe, for example, that their "Immaculate" is co-eternal with the Triune God, and that although she was once the historical mother of Jesus, she is now "reincarnated" and "dwells" in the very person of the recipient of these presumed private revelations. (9) It was because of such spurious attempts to add to the fundamental deposit of faith, and other such assertions, that the Army of Mary forfeited its claim to be a duly recognized Catholic association.

Then we have the Legion of Mary who requires:

Members say an oath of "Legion promise", a pledge of allegiance to the Holy Spirit and to Mary, in order to become a permanent active member. During the meetings, all prayers of the Tessera are said. The sessions start out with the introductory prayers to the Holy Spirit and Mary. These include five decades of the Rosary.

The spirituality of the Legion of Mary is essentially based on the approach of St. Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort as put forward in his book True Devotion to Mary.[6] Grignon de Montfort promoted a "total dedication" to Christ through devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which later also influenced popes such as John Paul II, as mentioned in his Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae. Another important element that shaped Legion spirituality was Frank Duff's devotion to the Holy Spirit. He promoted the (in popular devotion often neglected) adoration of the Third Person of the Trinity through the Virgin Mary, Whom he saw as the "visible image" of the Spirit. This is why the introductory prayers and the Legion promise are directed to the Holy Spirit and the vexillium Legionis bears His image in the form of a dove.

The essential aim of the Legion of Mary is the sanctification of its members through prayer, the sacraments and devotion to Mary and the Trinity, and of the whole world through the apostolate of the Legion.

The idea of an organization where ordinary laypeople in all situations of life would work for their own sanctification and for the conversion of the world was groundbreaking for its time. Only when the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) promoted such ideas in its documents did such an approach gain wider acceptance in the Catholic Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Legionis

Reading the writings of Catholics such as Louis DeMontfort's "True Devotion to Mary" reveals that there certainly IS a worship and prayer TO Mary that is condoned and encouraged in the Roman Catholic Church.

Be careful who you accuse of spreading "lies".

[boatbums]

Does that fact that your personal comments and insults to Elsie are STILL here on this thread change your impression of the Religion Moderator and the presumed "bias" of which you were bemoaning last night?

[boatbums]

Even better maybe a few more will be inspired to read St Leonard’s sermon - and then again maybe not. For what could any protestant learn from a some very old very dead saint?

I imagine there may very well be some Roman Catholics in heaven and perhaps a few will be quite surprised at all the non-Catholic Christians that are also there. Being that we will be in heaven with the Lord of Glory and be given the mind of Christ wherewith to understand the great mysteries previously unfathomable to our finite minds, we will at last be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passes knowledge, that we might be filled with all the fullness of God. We will finally realize that we are there NOT because of the righteous deeds we have done, or because we deserved or merited or earned the redemption and salvation we have been given, but:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14)

We will have all eternity to sing His praises. Glory to God!

[boatbums]

You, apparently, are not familiar with kitteh "protocol". Let me help.

First, approach little furball (LFB) with a treat (freeze-dried chicken or salmon usually works).

Hold out treat at arms length, but not within claw-swipe range (CSR).

Allow LFB to sniff said treat. If she eats it and stays, you can proceed to next step. However, if she grabs the treat, hisses and scurries away, know that at least you made some kind of impression and, if you're lucky, she may permit you to pay homage with a treat in the future - don't get your hopes up.

If LFB accepts homage and remains, ease a little bit closer while still out of said CSR.

Look LFB in the eyes and slowly blink several times (this is a sign of affection, if you're lucky, or at least a non-aggressive signal.

Notice if LFB returns said slow eye blink (SEB). If yes, you have been permitted in her presence and may continue to next step. If no, and she seems to be playing a staring contest, continue the SEB as long as she remains in place. If LFB runs away, try again next time starting at step one.

Present top part of hand to LFB so she may smell you. If she butts your hand with her forehead (BYHWHF), you have begun a friendship and may be allowed to pet her. If LFB hisses and swipes said hand with claw or teeth and runs away, try starting again at step one once your hand has healed (you may want to try from step one with your other hand sooner, but you are taking a risk).

Finally, there will be some days when LFB accepts a treat, does the SEB and BYHWHF, accepts petting and acts like she is your very best friend. And on other days, she will act like NONE of that has ever happened between you two. You have to learn her moods and recognize when she will accept worship or she vants to be alone. Never, I mean NEVER, force your affections on her - kittehs are a proud species. They can be the sweetest, most cuddly little critters you have ever known or the meanest, nastiest, hellion ever created - sometimes in the SAME kitteh. You just gotta learn to read them right. Good luck. Start on 'em young. ;o)

[Springfield Reformer]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have long days these days.

As to your question concerning deprecated passages, confessional reformed Protestants (my affiliation) as a whole would not be disposed to include or exclude a passage based strictly on age. That lies more in the direction of those who support the Critical Text (CT).

In general, we reformers follow the Byzantine text type. This is the reason for the preference for the KJV, although as I indicated above not to the extremes of the KJV-Onlyist.

As for your question about age, it would be irrational to use physical age as the sole criteria. A very old manuscript may well be in excellent condition, but perhaps it was regarded as an inferior copy and therefore relatively unused by the active church. So a variety of factors may come into play to determine which text is probably closest to the original.

See for example Acts 2:30 in the following versions:

KJV:
“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;”

Douay-Rheims Bible
“Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.”

New International Version:
“But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.”

Here the Byzantine retains the full force of the language of incarnation, whereas the others, being based on older but arguably inferior texts, tends to reflect an ambivalence toward the connection of the Christ to the physical line of David, which would be expected if, say, Gnostic copyists had meddled with the text. So the Byzantine would here deprecate the CT reading, and in so doing would put us closer to, not further from, classical Christian theology.

In any event, regarding your original question, as I said before, the passages you cite can be read in good conscience by any Protestant without attributing to Mary a state of sinlessness, or any other uniquely Catholic attribution. Given a straightforward use of the Greek, of course.

[Elsie]

Which Prot churches say this prayer in their assembly ?

Occasionally; our congregation (Wesleyan) is led in "The Lord's Prayer".

I never bring it up; but to me it is less an actual prayer, but a MODEL for a prayer, as I feel that is done more for a feeling of solidarity among folks in the congregation: but that's just me speaking.

(Sorry for the three 'but's in one sentence, but my brain is going really slow this morning.)

Dang!

I just did 2 more!

[Elsie]

Where does the [Roman] Catholic church teach that Gregory "wrote as the Holy Spirit dictated to him"?

Would showing where Mormonism teaches that GOD led Joseph Smith to re-'translate' the KJV of the Bible help any?

[Elsie]

...the Catholic belief that reincarnation does not exist, but more specifically that Mary was assumed soul and body into heaven by God, and therefore Mary's soul is not separate from her body, so that if she were to appear, it would have to be as herself, not as a reincarnation.

---

Nothing like a little bit of heresy to spice up a morning... 

 

 

That's why we pray to Mary for help.     http://www.indefenseofthecross.com/apparitions.htm

 

---

	Great Apparitions Lourdes Fatima Medjugorjie Our Lady of China Akita Guadalupe Garabandal Miraculous Medal The Virgin of Revelation Zeitoun, Egypt

[Elsie]

Does that fact that your personal comments and insults to Elsie are STILL here on this thread change your impression of the Religion Moderator and the presumed "bias" of which you were bemoaning last night?

I was called UGLY! by a toad once...

[Elsie]

The phrase “Scaredy Cat” applies to ALL my cats, except LFB’s mom Smoky.

They were all born out in the barn somewhere and grew up in the shadows, only venturing out within my sight at the sound of dry catfood clanking into their feeding bowl; a large stainless steel wheel cover.

[Elsie]

KJV:
“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;”

Douay-Rheims Bible
“Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.”

New International Version:
“But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.”

 

It might help to refer to the OT to SEE just what the PROMISE was, to determine how 'close' the NT translations are.

[LurkingSince'98]

Hmmmm...would the “League of Mary” also qualify?

Only in your little protestant dreams.

AMDG