click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Letter to Pope Benedict
by C Michael PattonJuly 13th, 2007
122 Comments
Dear Pope Benedict,
You are cramping my style. Don’t you read Parchment and Pen. Don’t you know that I have been making the argument that things had changed since the Reformation? Don’t you see that there was some progress being made; we were moving in a direction that is more positive and hateful polemics were being looked down upon. Haven’t you downloaded Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft’s Ecumenism with Compromise to your IPOD?
Then I read this article about your recent actions saying that I and my Christ-fearing brothers and sisters in the Protestant church are not a part of the true church. This is very disheartening. What is up with that? It is not as if I thought that Trent said anything less, but level with me, (just between you and I) you guys always change your position, you just don’t call it “change,” you call it “progression.” I can roll with that. I am not too uptight. But the fact is that those on your side and ours thought that things were “progressing” in the right direction. Vatican II attempted to “progress” by softening the language of Trent. It essentially said to us, “we are sorry,” and that “Protestants are not confined to the pits of hell.” Phew . . . that was encouraging.
I know, I know, it was not as if I expected us to unify publically or for you to renounce your thro . . . umm, seat, but Trent’s claims to exclusivity were arrogant and beyond your authority (yes, question begging, but this is a letter, not debate). Some of us were even calling you a cult until Vatican II. And then there was John Paul II. While he was rather odd about Mary, I was excited to see his willingness to chan . . . ahem . . . I mean progress (I keep forgetting that you cannot admit change as a presupposed foundation to your system).
I have been getting emails from Catholics all over the world that read our blog saying that they were disappointed with this statement. Someone even apologized on your behalf. I know that this someone (I can’t name names – don’t want them to get in trouble) does not have the authority in your system to apologize on your behalf, but I was glad he did nonetheless. My saddened countenance is expressed by all those who believed that things were changing. Sigh . . .
But we can fix this! It is not too late. Here is what you can do to both rectify this situation and save face. First, you have to redefine your use of the word “Church” in that document. You know, like that clever maneuver you did when you changed the intent of Trent’s “anathema” upon Protestants. You softened it to the point that we are now ”separated brethren.” That was nice. Kudos. Granted, I would have much rather you said that Trent was wrong and apologized for saying we were all going to Hell, but the “You just misunderstood us” was accepted.
What you can do here is say this: ”You misunderstood me.” Oh yeah! You then continue, ”All I meant to say was that Protestant Churches are not true Roman Catholic churches.” It would be like Baptists saying that all those not Baptists are not Baptists churches. Pretty self-evident, huh? That is the beauty of it! Then you go on, “But we did not mean that you were not part of the Body of Christ or that you could not gather in local fellowships.” That would be slick. I won’t tell anyone I told you to.
Later down the road, I was going to tell the next Pope to soften Vatican II, but you can only do so much.
BTW: I am working on the Evangelical church and our problems. They are many. We have so many maverick churches, denominations, and TV evangelists who say whatever they want. They have no regard for those who have gone before them. They have no regard for any type of authority out side of their own private interpretation. As you know, there are some who are claiming that God wants everyone to be rich and healthy. Others are saying that faith is a force. Still, others are beginning to devalue the exclusivity of Christ all together. We are an odd bunch and many in our ranks have either lost the Gospel completely or have lost focus. They are disrespectful and arrogant (oh, but that is a criticism that I have of you as well–but you already knew that). Protestants are just all over the place and frankly we don’t know what to do.
I know, I know, you warned us. But you must understand that most of us believe that it was still worth the risk. I am currently working on a project at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. We have a program called The Theology Program which seeks to help people understand theology biblically and historically. It has been great. We have over 30,000 students online and in local churches. What it does is encourage people to reengage their minds helping them to be accountable to those who have gone before us and authorial intent hermeneutics. It also helps people to understand what essential Christianity is. OK, enough of the self-promotion, but I do think it can have a serious impact, Lord willing. (BTW: Could you endorse The Theology Program? Chuck Swindoll did. Your endorsement might make some of our constituency think we have gone soft, but I think it is worth it to help educate your people to think critically . . . we will talk more about that later).
Now I know that you cannot actually consider the contents of this letter since consideration itself will undermine your own offices’ authority (I know, it’s a crazy mess you guys have gotten yourself into. I will explain how to get out of that later . . .) And I know that critical thinking is not really encouraged since no one in your church has the right to criticize its head (nice job, BTW, keep them all in line). But I nonetheless encourage you to be wise, humble, and rethink what you have done here. The atmosphere has changed. “Progress” has ceased. You have come dangerously close to putting us back in the time of the Reformation and we will all have to act accordingly to preserve the essence of what Christ did for us.
Pope, we all have problems . . . this I know. None of us has it all figured out. But yours is very significant. Nevertheless, you can change and greatly help your people to realize the fullness of the truth and release them of their unnecessary burden. Please consider my shrewd yet sincere proposal.
Truly and respectfully,
C. Michael Patton
Ordination 2001, Stonebriar Community Church
Th.M. 2001, Dallas Theological Seminary
President of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries
Similar Posts:
- Short Response to James White and About the Pope’s Declaration
- Why Eastern Orthodoxy? Part 1: Introduction
- The Catholic Church is a Cult
- Dear Pope, What is Up with Genesis?
- Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?
122 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
I hope people see this for the fun that I was trying to have with this serious lament. I do truly believe that the Pope’s reaffirmation, while nothing new to Trinitine theology, did set things back.
Also, please understand that this does not represent a change in my position concerning the possibility of a Catholic being saved, intelligent, and/or who love and are committed to Christ. It is just a change in my countenance about their progression and the possibility of dialogue.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry Michael, I don’t see this funny at all.
I am still mystified why you would even want to promote dialogue with a false church. Even Dave Armstrong seems to have a better grasp on the differences between Protestants and Catholics – I suggest you read through his answer to you in your previous post. Now I am sad that the Pope AND Dave Armstrong appear more firm in their beliefs than you.
I would really like to hear from you – is the RCC is a false church or not?
Like or Dislike:
0
Frankly, I think the letter is a brilliant way of pointing out the differences between RC and Protestants, of showing how this differences have been softened in the past, and how they might be further softened in the future by employing the same tactics. You also pointed out very clearly some of the more difficult issues that will be harder to rectify (authority, infallibility).
Of course, the self-promotion that underscores our mission was a nice touch, too.
The only way it wouldn’t be funny is if he actually sent it to the pope.
Wait…you didn’t, did you?
Like or Dislike:
0
Great – way to go Michael. Now your gonna get called to be on the Popes radio show!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Pope Benedict on Converse With Scholars!!! Nah, you’ve had enough heretics already!!!
Ok, Just kidding
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, I sent it to pope@vatican.com.
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie,
By Presbyterian and Lutheran principles the baptists are false churches too. And by Lutheran principles so are the presbyterians. Is perseverance of the saints an essential part of the gospel? If so, since the Lutherans deny it, do they have a false gospel? How about forensic imputation? Augustine considered and rejected it. Did he preach a false gospel too?
Like or Dislike:
0
Perry, we are all Evangelical, which is a transdenominational term that seeks to unite different Protestant traditions under the same spirit and essential doctrine. While we lament those who choose to say that they are the only true church in our own Protestant tradition, those who are Evangelical (which uncles many Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterian, Methodist, Bible Churches, Evangelical Free, etc) do not in any sense claim to be the one true church.
The one true Church, from a historic Protestant perspective, exists first ontologically as the invisible church of all those who are united with Christ by virtue of their trust in him and can be expressed by ANY who come together under a local authority that preaches God’s word and administrates the sacraments. We have much freedom as to how these things are done.
Therefore, Evangelicals do not say only certain Traditions or denominations are necessarily excluded from having a valid local church. They are only excluded if they fail to qualify either in belief (essential beliefs) and practice (not limited to a certain liturgy).
Like or Dislike:
0
Perry,
That does not answer my question. Whether the RCC is a false church or not is based on the standards set my God, not the Lutheran’s opinion of the Baptists.
What is the difference between a true church and false church?
Michael,
From your silence I have a feeling that you do not believe the RCC to be a false church. If so, I would really love to hear your reasoning.
Like or Dislike:
0
BTW, the Pope DOES have an iPod.
On the substance, I enjoyed the read and think you still have the right approach.
I think that Catholics can be saved the same way I think Calvinists can be saved, even though you are both wrong!
Yes, there is a qualitative and quantitative difference, I know, between the degree of error that might exist, but I see this as just the Catholics adding in a lot of junk, which means de-emphasizing a lot of important stuff. This could hamper the sanctification process, and could create other serious issues that impact the spread of the gospel, etc.
However, since my list of “essentials” for being “right with God” and saved and going to heaven, I expect to see both the Catholic and the Calvinist with me in heaven, no matter how wrong their theology is!
But what do you expect from an Arminian?! (or semi-Arminian, or semi-Pelagian, or psuedo-heretic or, well, whatever other label seems to fit from the other camps).
Like or Dislike:
0
I love it, Michael! I think you really SHOULD send it to the Pope. I don’t know if you were kidding or not that you did, but if you didn’t, go ahead and send it. The worst that will happen is that someone on the other end will just delete it before the Pope even reads it. But hey, maybe the Pope will read it and get a chuckle. Maybe he could use a little bit of lightening up. Or maybe it will be just one of millions of emails he will get complaining about the latest statement (which we know is not really a change in the RCC’s beliefs, but like Michael says, it does seem to set back dialogue).
This bit about “false gospel” is a bit confusing. I think that when the Apostle Paul was talking about people teaching false gospels, I think he was referring to people who would deny that Jesus rose from the dead. I think that many of the churches today teach things that you cannot find directly in the Bible and that are not necessary for salvation, but I don’t think that means they are teaching a FALSE gospel. I think their teachings may just be FLAWED.
I think a church teaching the TRUE gospel would teach that God loves mankind, that God came to earth in the form of Jesus to teach us and to die for us to bring us back in to union with God. We were separated from God (various churches will understand this differently) due to sin. God raised Jesus from the dead and the Holy Spirit was poured out on the world so that all who truly want to walk with God and do his will can, by the power of the Holy Spirit. That power comes to us when we accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour (again, various churches will interpret how this happens differently). Just about everything else the churches teach are open to “interpretation.” Well, that’s my opinion for what it’s worth.
It has been interesting reading about Catholicism. In the past two decades, I have spent a lot more time reading Protestant writings than Catholic and am learning more about what Catholicism teaches through this blog. Yet, my contemplative type of prayer would put me squarely in with so many ancient Catholic writers. Like I have said before on this website, I don’t really know what to call myself. I don’t even know that it really matters what I call myself. What matters is my relationship with God and my treatment of myself and my fellow travelers on this earth. Yet, I guess it is good to put a name to something. I have called myself in the past a “very ecumenical Catholic.” Yet, some say that if I don’t believe ALL that the RCC churches, I am not really a Catholic. A “liberal” Catholic may not be a Catholic at all in the eyes of many. So Michael, if you have figured out what I am, let me know!
Joanie D.
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie, I would say they are a church teaching a lot of false doctrine. But then, as I said, I think the Calvinists teach a lot of doctrine that is also not correct. I guess the difference is that the Catholics hold that these doctrines are dogmatically true (although, I wonder if some Calvinists might think that the 5 Points are equally, infallibly dogma).
I guess you would have to define what you think a false church is. One that teaches things I think are not true? On issues of what degree of certainty? On salvation issues only?
Once we get past the basic creeds (see Michael’s other thread), I am pretty reluctant to insist that any of the additional theological concepts are ESSENTIAL, in the sense that belief or non-belief in them is an issue effecting salvation. And, my first reaction would be to consider only those who can’t affirm the initial creeds as a “false church”.
But I am not dogmatic about that definition, and am willing to hear what you would define it as and why.
Like or Dislike:
0
I would agree. I think I have been clear both on this blog and on the Dividing Line when I was asked this question about whether or not the Catholic Church has a false Gospel. I think their soteriology within their Gospel is lacking, but that does not make their entire Gospel false. The Gospel starts with the person and work of Christ. If you get this right, I don’t think you can broadbrush the entire thing as say they got it ALL wrong. It says a lot when they confess Christ as the God-man, that man is sinful and totally dependent on the grace of God that comes ultimately through Christ, and that faith is necessary.
Where they fail is not so much with the idea of forensic justification. This aspect of their Gospel is false.
I don’t know why it has to be a total either/or. I think that Protestants have certain aspects of the Gospel wrong, being very Gnostic in our belief about the ultimate end of the “Good News” but I think we have the more central features of soteriology correct.
I could be wrong about all this, but that is what I am willing to put in black and white today.
Semper Reformana my friends.
Like or Dislike:
0
Here is a visual that I think may be useful. Picture a long, linear spectrum of belief. To the far right is perfect correctness in all areas of theology. To the left is error.
Now all of us will put ourselves on this line somewhere, and most of us will put ourselves well onto the right-hand side. Then we can line up everyone else at some degree to the left of us (we would, of course, put no one to the right or we would believe what they do!).
So, the question becomes how far to the left of us does someone have to be to be considered a “false Gospel” or a “false Church”? How far down the line would we say someone is not saved and going to heaven?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
It sounds like you cannot even define what the gospel is or isn’t. I tend to think the gospel can be defined.
But I won’t bother you further. I am sorry if you thought you had been clear, I was having trouble figuring out where you stand. I guess your best answer is “I don’t knowâ€. Thanks for finally answering me.
Vance,
I believe your thinking is flawed. You keep putting an emphasis on personal beliefs rather than looking at the teachings of an organization. The question is, what is the gospel?
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance, that is a good way to think of it.
But here is what I would add, that there is a line that is crossed when you affirm your sinfulness, Christ person and work, and salvation by grace alone through faith. If you were to deny any of those, I do think your Gospel would be false.
But as I said on the broadcast, Arminians and Calvinists would be as different as Catholics and Calvinists with regards to some of these issues.
Carrie, I would ask you if you believe that Arminians have a false Gospel since they believe you can lose your salvation?
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie, I would say that it is easy to say the Gospel can be firmly defined, but harder to actually define it. I think Michael’s concept of the historic creeds, etc, is the closest we can get. And, yes, I do focus on what an individual believes, and for two reasons:
1. It is individuals that are either saved or not saved, so what THEY believe is what matters.
2. Most people who belong to an organization do not even really understand what that organization believes in every detail. Ask the guy in the pew next to you next Sunday about a list of theological issues and see what you get.
Yes, there ARE absolutes, and I think the Bible makes sure we have a clear understanding of the basics. But I think most of what we have developed as theological constructs are just that, theological constructs of man to do their best to articulate the ways of God into human language. Necessarily flawed to begin with, but some closer than others. On those points, I would be hesitant to get too dogmatic.
Even the Westminster Confession says:
“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
So, those things necessary for salvation are clear, but beyond that, things in Scripture are less clear and human interpretation (and thus human fallibility) gets involved.
Like or Dislike:
0
I just had to laugh at Ed Kratz! Touché brother! haha…
Michael this is a funny post. I think it reflects what you have been saying all along. I am relieved to now understand what you have been saying all along. ïŠ
Oh and no I do not think Arminians have a false Gospel (wait that is to the other Carrie here. Hi Carrie
)
At any rate, if only what we said to the pope could change his mind. He however doesn’t hold to the same views of church discipline as we do.
In regards to this entire discussion that has built up over the past week, I rest in the fact that God will save whom He will save. We proclaim His Truth and He does with it what He will. His Word will not return void.
Blessings,
Carrie
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie, I would ask you if you believe that Arminians have a false Gospel since they believe you can lose your salvation?
I believe in general a person is saved prior to becoming an Arminian or Calvinist.
This is my point, I think you all are confusing downstream theologies with the actual gospel. You are trying to define WHAT saves based on the beliefs of those you think are saved. That is confusing.
FYI, I don’t consider myself an Arminian or Calvinist – I am on the fence. Shocking, I know.
when you affirm your sinfulness, Christ person and work, and salvation by grace alone through faith.
I would agree with you here for the most part, but those things can be hard to define experientially, don’t you think? I know that they are because less than a year ago I lead my friend to Christ and I had a real difficult time trying to explain to her the difference b/w mental assent and true saving faith.
BTW, my concern with the RCC in this regard is even though they “say†all those things you have listed, they defy the actual meaning through their actions. That is why fruit is more trustworthy than words when judging.
When you have to expiate your own sins in purgatory, have you really put your faith in Christ for salvation? When faith and justification are conferred to an infant through baptism, maintained by the Eucharist and recovered by penance, is that grace? When the Muslim and other non-believers can be saved without ever professing Christ as their Savior, is that really the gospel?
Like or Dislike:
0
To give a summary of Catholic doctrine on that point (that may cause any Catholic to cringe at my crude presentation), Christ’s death and sacrifice created all the Grace sufficient to overcome any and all sins you may commit, but you have to go fetch that grace to wash it clean. It is a pool of grace you have to drawn from and wash, as it were, as you sin again. When you die without a last good washing, you have not utilized all the grace available to you, so you are still a bit dirty when you die. Purgatory is simply the place where you can go and get that final washing from Christ’s grace. More like an antechamber to Heaven where you wash your hands before going into dinner (although some need a lot more washing than others!).
So, Catholics would say it all still is based on Jesus, and his Grace, but you have to avail yourself of it. This grace is available to Catholics through all of the sacraments. These are where you can draw from the pool and get Christ’s grace as you go along.
Very simplistic explanation, and probably not exactly how they would describe it, but I think it is pretty close.
Like or Dislike:
0
. It is individuals that are either saved or not saved, so what THEY believe is what matters.
Absolutely. But I am not judging individual Catholics, I am judging an organization.
I am assuming you would consider the Mormons a false church since they are non-trinitarian, correct? So if you met a Mormon who really seemed to be saved, despite what their church teaches, would you no longer consider the Mormon church false?
Second question, if a Mormon was truly saved, would you expect them to stay in the Mormon church?
(Hi Carrie -great name!
)
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie and Carrie,
Great comments. Thanks for stimulating discussion. I know this seems pointless at times, but it is iron sharpening iron I believe. God be merciful to us all!
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
The grace you described is not what I would consider biblical grace.
BTW Vance, I think you have fallen victim to Catholic’s soften touch on their doctrines. Your version of purgatory is not quite accurate:
“Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.â€
“…The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.”
-Catholic Encyclopedia
â€In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.” In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.†CCC 475
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance, great presentation.
Here is what I would add (and now here I go again!). The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is very ill-defined and debated. In some cases, to hear Catholics explain it, it sounds essentially the same as our view of Sanctification.
Some would say that it is timeless (being outside of time) and therefore, practically speaking, instantaneous. I talk about this on the Theology Unplugged broadcasts about Roman Catholicism. In essence, we are all moving to a state of perfection. When we die, we all find ourselves at various levels of sanctification (we all agree to this point). When we reach glory, we will all be perfect (we all agree again). There must be a transformation that takes place between death and glory that perfects us (we all agree again!). Some catholics would say that this transformation is purgatory and it happens instantaneously. You may experience pain, but it is literally “glorifying pain.” Wow! If that is the case, we are not THAT far off. (How is that for softening the language of the million years of the past-nice job to the liberal Catholics-although this may not be simply a liberal thing).
Like or Dislike:
0
What I have heard is much closer to what Michael describes, and I have gotten that explanation from Catholics directly. A radio show that is worth listening to is Catholic Answers Live, and you can get it as a podcast from iTunes. They are a pretty conservative lot and seem to be discussing modern Catholic doctrine, and fairly “by the book” at the same time.
Good point about the Mormons. I think that if they had a belief sufficient to salvation, they would have to be clearly outside Mormon belief, and so technically no longer Mormon. But you are right, the institutional positions are worth discussing since the individuals are all over the board.
But the question is still the same: how far down the spectrum does the belief have to be (whether expressed by an individual or an institution) before it is “false gospel” and how far before it results in a lack of salvation? Are those points the same?
Like or Dislike:
0
….or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions
That is from Carrie’s definition of purgatory seen above.
That is very problematic because Christ paid it all.
Now my question is this…
If someone dies and at the moment of their death they are of the belief that Christ did not pay it all, what do we say about that?
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, there is a bit of a disconnect between the definitions Carrie cites and what Catholics are saying nowadays.
That is a VERY difficult question you pose Carrie Hunter. Normally I would say that a person who has called out to Christ for forgiveness and salvation, and is honestly seeking, but just has a bad theological view of how it all actually happens, is still saved. But this “bad theology” comes very close to a “salvation issue” of wrong belief. I would say it is too close to call for us humans and God is the only judge of that one. I definitely would NOT say that is a slam-dunk case of someone falling outside of Grace.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you for your response Vance.
I have to say this now about everything that has being going on now for almost 2 weeks.
I think we can find a million and one things about RCC dogma that show a departure from forensic justification.
Michael like I said last night on the phone…we proclaim the truth, the truth of the Gospel, and God will use it for His purpose. We do this without compromise, yet we do this in gentleness and meekness. That is all we can do as believers.
If someone is in the RCC and is saved it is God’s doing. If someone is in the SBC and saved it is God’s doing.
God will save people in spite of their bad doctrine.
If we encounter people who think they can add to what Christ did on the cross, we simply tell them “No, you can not. His work is perfect and we can not add to itâ€. Explain why we believe this, and leave the rest up to God.
Is that throwing in the towel? Or is it resting in God’s Sovereignty?
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, there is a bit of a disconnect between the definitions Carrie cites and what Catholics are saying nowadays.
Bingo!
I really feel this is a big problem in the discussions on this blog. You guys are listening to what lay Catholics have to say but lay Catholics have no authority and confuse their own church’s doctrines. Trust me, I grew up an RC and still know many RCs – the RCC is a comfortable place for the traditionalist to the universalist.
If you really want to get a better grasp on where the RCC stands, then look to their official teachings. Don’t listen to lay Catholics, even Catholic Answers. I think it is fairly easy to label the RCC as a false church because their beliefs are so clearly defined and because every Catholic is expected to follow in lock-step 100%.
What I have seen online is a lot of e-pologists â€protestantizing†their beliefs. They want to be accepted by Protestants as brethren in Christ and unfortunately, this latest announcement by their church has taken the wind out of their sails. Clearly these tactics work on many people which is why a small few try to keep flush out the real beliefs (like James White).
God will save people in spite of their bad doctrine.
But will the saved remain in a church that is full of bad doctrine? Would you question the salvation of the leadership in a church ripe with bad doctrine?
What you are saying Carrie is what I started out trying to say. Let’s focus on preaching the gospel rather than building bridges to organizations that at a minimum are questionable. Don’t purse Rome, pursue the lost. The catch there is that you need to identify the lost and if you ignore the Catholics b/c you think their gospel is close enough, I think you have made a grave error.
I will still try to post some more official RCC teachings that I think deny the gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
In fairness to the Catholic Church, I would like to add the actual words of the Holy Father that were written when he was known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the are reiterated and clarified in a question/answer format in the document that is causing the stir here http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html ….
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XIV) states his intention in the conclusion of his Dominus Iesus http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
23. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: “I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received†(1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church’s faith and to give reasons for her hope in a way that is convincing and effective.
The Holy Father’s intention is clearly primarily to function in the teaching/pastoral capacity of his office. He’s doing his job for his Church—guiding his flock (Catholics) in the tenets of their faith and explaining the rationale. It is not addressed to the Protestant community or the Orthodox community—although both Protestants and Orthodox have an interest in what the Holy Father has to say.
In that regard, the former Cardinal Ratzinger simply expressed what has been the continual teaching of the Catholic : That the Church known as the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ. He is careful to explain this does NOT mean that other ecclesial communities are NOT TRUE, merely that the FULLNESS of truth is found only in the Catholic Church—the other communities have much to offer and can even be educational for Catholic laity, however, it is important to understand (as Cardinal Ratzinger points out) that what light there is in these other ecclesial communities, ultimately is sourced from the Church that Christ founded and which has maintained valid apostolic succession from the words of Christ.
To be frank—the Catholic position is that Jesus founded the One True Church and gave authority to Peter by giving him the “keys†to the kingdom and the power of “binding and loosing.†This authority can be historically traced through the ages via apostolic succession of laying on of hand in the episcopate of the Catholic Church. And finally, this valid Church—the single Church of Christ–established by Jesus himself and protected and preserved through the ages, is the source of all Christian truth both in the Catholic Church and in all other Christian communities.
This is the teaching of the Catholic Church and it is the Magisterium duty to inform the members of their Church concerning their beliefs. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger was careful to explain what he meant by “subsists in†in his original document Dominus Iesus.
This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with himâ€.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truthâ€,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Churchâ€.57
………………………..
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Churchâ€.66
Like or Dislike:
0
Great post Micheal!
It helps to have a sense of humor when dealing with such statements from the RCC, versus a knee-jerk reaction. By way of implication, some have only demonstrated to nip themselves by their own public statements.
I find it almost difficult to not to approach theology without a sense of humor (taking secondary issues too seriously).
I would rather learn through TTP than the catechisms.
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie,
It might be helpful to find out what “satisfaction” means in Catholic theology first or to lay out for your readers how it has been defined by official documents or at least representative Catholic theologians.
Catholicism doesn’t subscribe to a penal model of the atonement, so “satisfaction” for Catholic theologians like Anselm or Aquinas doesn’t mean what it means for Reformed Christians.
So for the intermediate state (aka purgatory) “satisfaction” as a term has a definate history of usage and development. It means more of something like amendment or correction of life/disposition rather than a paying God off for a debt. God requires sinners make amendment-set things right.
It is important to distinguish between popular abuses that Luther saw in his day like Tetzel and official and defined teaching. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in purgatory, but it doesn’t give you any credbility in the eyes of informed Catholics to attack a strawman based on a misunderstanding technical terms.
As for forensic justification, do you really want to say that people who considered it like Augustine and rejected it had a false gospel? Really?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your suggestions. Sorry that I’m cramping your style.
I tend to do that to alot of non-believers. I don’t have an iPOD,
instead I have an infalliable access to God myself. You do know
that the problems with the Protestant sect could all be straightened
out with, oh I don’t know, say, top down theology. (Isn’t that
what you kids are saying these days?) Hey, here’s a novel idea,
why not let Christ appoint someone over the head of the Church
and then he could straighten out the issues. Oh, wait, sorry, he
already did that and you think your smarter than him. Your right,
you keep your sola scriptura (the view that anyone can interpret
the bible in any way they feel is right) and we will stick to the
teachings of the Apostles (of which I am) and the Church Fathers.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not sending you or anyone else to Hell.
If you end up in Hell you have no one to blame but yourself. I tell
you what. I’ll put your name on file and in say 63.8 years I’ll have a
mass said to get you out of Purgatory. And it won’t cost you a red
cent. How’s that for “progress”?
I whole heartedly endorse The “Theology” Program. It’s a perfect
way for Catholics to see how Protestants twist scripture and history
to their own demise.
In conclusion I can see how pride has blinded you. If you are a Jew
I have just reinstated a mass that would pray just for you. If not
then may God have mercy on your soul (this includes Chuck Swindoll
and your pope Rick Warren).
Lovingly in his Grace,
Pope Benedict XVI; Vicar of Christ
P.S. That’s Mr. Pope to you!
Like or Dislike:
0
Perry,
You wrote,
“By Presbyterian and Lutheran principles the baptists are false churches too. And by Lutheran principles so are the presbyterians. Is perseverance of the saints an essential part of the gospel? If so, since the Lutherans deny it, do they have a false gospel? How about forensic imputation? Augustine considered and rejected it. Did he preach a false gospel too?”
C’mon Perry. Stick to topic on this. Don’t try to skirt around the issue Carrie raised, which was a good point.
Jay
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP:
I would like to echo carrie’s question? Is the RCC true or false? (If you’re wondering why this question is so important, imagine talking to a brother in Christ that is spending much time with a Mormon elder, reading and recommending Mormon works, subtly jeering at his previous convictions, while claiming not to be crossing/swimming/fishing the Salt Lake)
You keep directing folks to your non-answer (ie. last night’s Dividing Line with James White). You suggest that the RCC has some soteriological issues, but their doctrine of God is correct.
OK, fine.
Now back to the question: Can a soteriological problem render any gospel as false?.
If you believe that Rome is true, based on correct doctrine of God (as well as their ecclesiology-per your confessed sympathy w/ Beckwith), is there anything regarding soteriology that they could possibly (infallibly) proclaim that would render them false in your mind? If so, what?
You answered my earlier post (a few days ago) by washing yourself of any implied relativistic bent, yet, I can’t help but scratch my head when I hear and read some of your perspectives regarding Rome.
Can we look at a system (armed with knowledge of the Bible) and determine it’s rightness or wrongness? My assmumtion is that you (CMP) would point to JW’s or Mormons and categorically declare their gospel as false. Is this assessment fair?
Here’s a topic for ‘combox tennis’: Should the following words be directed to anyone other than Christ? If so, to whom?
“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.”
If you said that this plea can be rightly directed to Mary, you’re right (by RCC standards).
Clearly, this is a soteriological question. Is it, however, offensive to you? If not, why?
I don’t mean “offensive” in a sense like someone lighting up a cigarette at table adjacent to your family in a restaurant “offensive,” I’m referring to an ache in your gut that comes from someone robbing from your Lord “offensive.”
If it is this offensive to you, why isn’t such (and there are many of the like) a prayer as this enough to sever your affair with Rome? Obviously, there are many offensive beliefs about which we differ from the RCC, but I selected this one to (hopefully) finally establish your position.
Your thoughts?
Like or Dislike:
0
Seven and others, here is a simple question I posted in the “heresy” thread, which is also applicable here:
Can a heretic be saved? Can a heretic go to heaven?
Once we define what orthodoxy is, and thus what heresy is, that would mean that anyone who does not accept ANY one of those essentials is a heretic.
If we say that heretics can not be saved, then we say that anyone who does not accept one of the essentials, even if he accepts the rest, is not saved and is eternally damned.
So, looking at the list for an example: It someone believes, with all their heart, every single thing on that first list EXCEPT, say, the authority of the visible church, are they damned to Hell?
What if they accept the authority of the visible Church, and all the others, EXCEPT for the infallibility of the Scripture? Also damned to Hell?
I am not saying that it would not be the case, but it makes for interesting consideration. Ultimately the question is one that Michael and Rhome have brought up before: how LITTLE can a person get right, with a sincere heart, and still be under God’s Grace? How MUCH can a person get wrong in their understanding and still be going to heaven?
I am glad I am not the judge of that, but I see a lot of people who seem willing to pass judgment on such issues by labeling heresy/false Gospel. I agree that we must draw the line somewhere and be willing to call a spade a spade, but where do we draw the line?
Like or Dislike:
0
Jybnntt,
She did raise a good point, and I am asking her and others to be consistent with it. It seems that you guys are playing by a double standard. Oh sure, Rome is heterodox but on the very same principles, you give protestants or your own historical personal heroes a free pass. I am asking her to be consistent. If you aren’t going to say Lutherans or others are heretics on the very same denials (perseverance of the saints, limited atonement, baptismal regeneration, qualifications for being a true church), then either you need to give a good reason as to why the principle doesn’t apply or you should not be identifying THE gospel by those theological markers, or you should call them heretics too.
Like or Dislike:
0
Felicity,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify some things. I can sense your concern and really appreciate it.
You statement here was particularly helpful:
“That the Church known as the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ. He is careful to explain this does NOT mean that other ecclesial communities are NOT TRUE, merely that the FULLNESS of truth is found only in the Catholic Church—the other communities have much to offer and can even be educational for Catholic laity, however, it is important to understand (as Cardinal Ratzinger points out) that what light there is in these other ecclesial communities, ultimately is sourced from the Church that Christ founded and which has maintained valid apostolic succession from the words of Christ.”
Thanks again.
For those of you reading, Felicity is a friend from Catholic Answers. She puts up a great “fight.” Welcome Felicity.
Like or Dislike:
0
Seven, I already answered it here, there, and on this blog in explicit posts. Do you really think that all things are equally clear in Scripture? If not, are you a relativist?
Am I a relativist simply because I say that the requirement for belief in the resurrection and the Lordship of Christ is clearer than the doctrine of sola fide? This is a fact. It does not mean that sola fide is not important, but Catholics do have a point about the confusion of James 2. You should at least try to understand where they are coming from even if you don’t agree. While I believe that Paul was very clear about the doctrine, it is not THAT clear in the rest of Scripture and some people will honestly read James 2 and take it at face value. Do you really blame them. Are they going to be damned to hell for this. Yes, it lacks the fullness of the Gospel, but I don’t think it is ultimately damning in and of itself. What is damning is a denial of salvation by grace through faith, the person and work of Christ, and human sinfulness.
It is faith in Christ alone that saves, not an explicit affirmation of this doctrine.
Do you believe that Arminians who believe that you can lose their salvation have a false Gospel and are damned?
For some reason, no one wants to answer this, but, ultimately, there is no difference.
Michael
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
I believe that a heretic can indeed be saved. With historic orthodoxy, there are those central things laid out in the Bible that people CANNOT reject and be Christian: The deity of Christ (Rom. 10) and his work (1 Cor. 15).
But, for example, as off the wall as it is, I believe that full preterists, who are, by definition, heretics, can still be believers.
Michael
Like or Dislike:
0
Perry,
The question at hand is whether Roman Catholic dogma teaches a false gospel. If protestant dogma (i.e. a confession of faith) teaches the same principle soteriological error then it also teaches a false gospel.
Lutheran dogma (The Book of Concord) does not teach the same error. Are there any Protestant confessions that do? I don’t know, but if they do I assure you that I would indeed evaluate them the same.
Okay, now that that is off the table, back to the main point . . .
Like or Dislike:
0
Pope,
Why would an infallible teacher need to give a reason for anything he says?
Jay
Like or Dislike:
0
Bennet,
Oh? wso Lutheranism teaches the perseverance of the saints? Thats news! The denial of which was your previous basis for saying that Catholicism teaches a false gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
Perry,
I’m not sure which comment you are referring to. I do not recall saying that.
Also, failing to teach a doctrine and outright rejection are two different things.
The Book of Concord teaches a monergistic view of salvation. God alone is the sole, ultimate, only, alone, by himself, efficient cause of one’s salvation.
But again, totally beside the point.
Jay
Like or Dislike:
0
I will say this only once to Michael. Please refrain your flock from
addressing me. This letter is addressed to me. I know that you
Protestants think that everything written is written to you. But,
in this case when a letter is addressed to a person it is for that
person from another person. Namely Michael and Myself. I think it
would be rather wise of you to abide by the authority given in this
blog and show respect.
Thank you Michael for seeing to this issue.
In His Loving Grace
Pope Benedict XVI; Vicar of Christ
P.S. that’s Mr. Poep to you M. Jay Bennett
Like or Dislike:
0
sorry M Jay *
Mr. Pope
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve been gone on a business trip since Dan’s last post. So, please excuse my ignorance if I’ve missed anything.
To CMP, Vance, Perry Robinson, Dan Wallace, and all other ecumenical types:
carrie and Seven have brought up a great point concerning the Mormons, and so, I think this point needs to be emphasized.
Hypothetically, let’s say that you have someone that believes in all the historic, orthodox distinctives of Protestant Christianity (deity of Christ, Trinity, sola gratia, solus Christus, etc.) EXCEPT that this individual *denies* that Christ came in the flesh. Would that be grounds for exclusion from the Covenant (1 John 4:3)?
Secondly, using your standards, on what basis could Paul exclude the Judaizers (Galatians 1:6-10)? I mean, they didn’t deny the Messiahship of Jesus or His atonement on the cross. They simply added circumcision to the gospel. Paul was such a bigot! How dare he?!?
[BTW: Unless I am mistaken, it still remains that no one has given an exegesis of Galatians 1 and why that would not apply to Roman Catholicism.]
Like or Dislike:
0
Oooooohhh. . . . where’s the infallibility now, Mr. Poep?
Respectfully,
Jya
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry Poep,
Jay (I am fallible after all)
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance said, “If we say that heretics can not be saved, then we say that anyone who does not accept one of the essentials, even if he accepts the rest, is not saved and is eternally damned.”
No. We exclude them from the visible church and *consider* them heathen (Matthew 18:17). It is the job of the church to enforce orthodoxy. If they do make it to heaven, then it wasn’t the church’s fault for exclusion.
Second, how do you deal with the Scriptural statements which state that those who deny the essentials “have cut themselves off from Christ” (Galatians 5:4), are “antichrists” (1 John 2:22), “are not from God” (1 John 4:3), etc.?
Vance said, “Can a heretic be saved? Can a heretic go to heaven?”
I would differentiate between Heresy (i.e. a denial of essentials) and heresy (i.e. denial of non-essentials). As to ‘H’eresy, John clearly states that “there is a sin leading to death” (1 John 5:16). In the context of 1 John, this sin was Gnostic teaching. So, a denial of essentials should result in the exclusion from the Covenant (or at least visibly by the church).
Like or Dislike:
0
Perry,
As to Lutherans on baptismal regeneration and Augustine on non-forensic justification:
I would give a pass to Augustine and other church fathers simply because Augustine was dealing with the Latin term ‘iustificare’ instead of the Greek ‘dikaioo’, and so, he did the best he could in his ignorance.
Nowadays, there is simply no excuse for ignorance (at least not in the West).
As for all of them (i.e. Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, Wycliffe, Huss, etc. and the Lutherans on baptismal regeneration), there is a markedly different manner in which they treat human merit (or in the case of the Lutherans, baptism) and the way the Roman Catholic theologians that I’ve heard treat human merit. The former downplay it greatly while the latter exalt it.
Like or Dislike:
0
It means more of something like amendment or correction of life/disposition rather than a paying God off for a debt….Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in purgatory, but it doesn’t give you any credbility in the eyes of informed Catholics to attack a strawman based on a misunderstanding technical terms.
I suggest you read the quote again:
“Purgatory (Lat., “purgareâ€, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.â€
Maybe my reading comprehension is poor, but it sounds like the “satisfaction” requires punishment. I guess those sins weren’t nailed to the cross.
Like or Dislike:
0
John 4:2 clearly says that saying the “Christ came in the flesh” is from the Spirit of God. It is an essential. In essence, what was happening is that people were saying that God could not have come in the flesh. Therefore, this is a proclamation of deity. Ed Komoszewski’s book “Putting Jesus in His Place” will deal with this quite a bit. (There is your plug Ed!).
I think one thing that people need to recognize about Paul’s condemnation of the Judizer is that it was levied against Peter himself as Paul illustrated what lengths he was willing to go to preserve the Gospel. In other words, he would even stand up to Peter.
Therefore, Paul’s beef with the Judizers is the same as he has with Peter in Gal 2. Do you think he condemned Peter to hell?
Something to think about.
Like or Dislike:
0
Here are some more quotes for you, Perry:
“Hence, since our prayers and our sacrifices can help those who are still waiting in purgatory, the saints have not hesitated to warn us that we have a real duty toward those who are still in purgatorial expiation.†Catholic Encyclopedia
â€In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.” In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.†CCC 475
“An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity. Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted†CCC 478-479
There is always an upside to the tough teachings of Catholicism. What Christ couldn’t accomplish on the cross, your friends and family can accomplish by good works.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mr. Patton,
I expect that your style of Protestantism is typical in that you have
little to no control over your 30,000 member flock. So, as usual
Rome will have to clean up the mess of disrespect in the wake of
this blog.
M. Jay Bennett,
Perhaps if you knew the difference between infallible and impeccable,
it would show your ability think rather than parrot the ignorance you
have gained from protestantism and demonstrated here. I trust that
you are not in The “Theology” Program, for those students would never
make that mistake. Notice how they all show proper respect by not
addressing me as I asked.
Pope Benedict XVI; Vicar of Christ
Like or Dislike:
0
Therefore, Paul’s beef with the Judizers is the same as he has with Peter in Gal 2. Do you think he condemned Peter to hell?
Oh come on. Do you think Paul was accusing Peter of teaching “another gospel” because he sat with those guys?
If he wasn’t condemning the judaizers to hell, then who was the anathema against? I am no exegetical wizard but this sounds crazy.
Like or Dislike:
0
Pope B, I am still not talking to you.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Necessary for Salvation”:
Catholic Catechism:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation…
1277 Baptism…is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself…
183 Faith is necessary for salvation…
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation…
980 …This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation…
846 …the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…
1816 …Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation…
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
837 …Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.
2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation…
2068 …so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
your letter was to me. I am addressing it. Tell you what. You seem
like cardinal material. Have you ever considered baseball?
Mr. Pope to you
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie,
I think it is something to consider. The main point is that his confrontation with Peter is used as an illustration as to what lengths he was willing to go to protect the Gospel–even confront Peter when he had it wrong.
Why would this be so hard to believe? It is in the argumentative context which Paul is using.
Then Paul says, in the same context, if we or an Angel from heaven preaches to you a different Gospel, let him be anathema. I think the idea is that while he confronted Peter, he was even willing to confront himself (“we”) or, better, an angel from heaven. I don’t think we need to push this too far and say that Paul was actually condemning these people to hell, but he certainly was speaking of their message.
In other words, Peter’s message that warranted Paul’s confrontation was anathema just as those who were trying to burden them again with circumcism.
The Gospel message is that important!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie,
The nice thing is that if you don’t believe these things you are “invincibly ignorant” and therefore not condemned.
The funny thing is that it is actually easier from a Catholic perspective, post VII, for a non-Catholic to be saved than a Catholic.
Yet another reason to keep your self dry of the Tiber water!
Like or Dislike:
0
You are too funny Pope. I will have to check an see who you are.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
“Therefore, Paul’s beef with the Judizers is the same as he has with Peter in Gal 2. Do you think he condemned Peter to hell?”
I’ve never denied that it is possible for someone with a deficient view of justification to be saved. Rather, I’ve stated that it constitutes an exclusion from the visible church. This is why Paul *rebukes* Peter and calls him to repent.
Paul was following the procedure of Matthew 18:15-17, the end result of which is excommunication if there is no recanting (v.17).
Third, does the term “anathema” in 1:8 mean absolutely nothing? What about being “severed from Christ” (5:4)?
Like or Dislike:
0
Bennett,
It was an implication drawn from your previous comment. And the Lutherans argued for centuries (still do) against the Reformed on perseverance and other points. They “outright†reject ithem. You earlier wrote that denying perseverance of the saints implies synergism and hence semi-pelagianism. By logical implication then, the Lutherans are semi-pelagian. You need to own your implications. So it is quite to the point, because you can only consistently condemn one teaching by condemning the other. But you are clearly unwilling to do so.
Carrie,
I suggest you define what “satisfaction†amounts to for Catholic theology first, since the point in question hinges on it. Otherwise you are begging the question at issue and equivocating. Satisfaction in penance and purgatory doesn’t mean the same thing as in the atonement. I don’t need more quotes as I study theology for a living, not to mention teach about medieval scholasticism. Furthermore, the quotes you provide still leave undefined what “satisfaction†for sin amounts to. Bringing in expiation won’t advance your claims either since the expiation will be derived from the grace of Christ. Hence you confuse accomplishment with application.
Saint and Sinner,
Augustine knew Greek and was sufficiently proficient at it later in life, even though he never liked it. In any case, he considers the idea that justification is forensic and rejects it. That isn’t ignorance, that is rejection. And I can’t see how it matters how they treat merit, since all of the Augustinians like Augustine and Bernard thought that even though we merit justification, it is merit crowned by and grounded in grace. That is exactly the kind of synergism Trent advocates. Augustine and Bernard were synergists plain and simple in relation to justification so I can’t see how one can be fair and condemn the teaching of one without doing likewise for the other.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
I think you are way off-base on that one.
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. ”
The condemnation is targeted at the person, not the message. “If we or an angel, anyone”, let “him” be accursed.
Maybe someone can tell you from the greek that what you suggest is impossible.
Second of all, Peter was not preaching the Judaizer’s message. Paul condemned him for simply hanging out with them to the exclusion of the gentiles. To me this says that the message is so important you shouldn’t even give the appearance that you support “another gospel” in any way. That I believe applies to this ecumenism with Rome.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The Gospel message is that important!!”
Then, doesn’t that include the exclusion of Heretics from the visible church AND considering them as heathen (Matt. 18:17)?
I believe that many RC’s will go to heaven. However, for the sake of protecting the gospel and not giving the lost a false hope, I would consider them as gentiles and tax-collectors.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have never said that heretics not excluded from the visible Church. The visible church has to do with those that the church places their approval upon. Who said that I ever said otherwise?
Like or Dislike:
0
“In other words, Peter’s message that warranted Paul’s confrontation was anathema just as those who were trying to burden them again with circumcism.
The Gospel message is that important!!” ~C Michael Patton
CORRECT! It was so important they all convened in Jerusalem to hash out the doctrinal implications. That first Church Council is evidence that the early Church participated in a structured hierarchy with Peter at the head and established a central teaching authority.
Like or Dislike:
0
In addition, Michael–thanks for the warm welcome!
Like or Dislike:
0
“That is exactly the kind of synergism Trent advocates. Augustine and Bernard were synergists plain and simple in relation to justification so I can’t see how one can be fair and condemn the teaching of one without doing likewise for the other.”
As for Augustine and Greek, I’m not qualified to speak to that issue.
I’m not denying that Augustine’s or Bernard’s stated theology denied merit. However, there is a notable difference between the way that they treat merit *in practice* from the way most RC theologians I’ve heard speak on the issue.
Like or Dislike:
0
the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins.
Perry,
The answers are right there in front of your face.
But since you study theology maybe you can tell me the definition of “punishment”. And then you can explain how the merits of the saints plays in with the grace of Christ.
I don’t really care how Catholics define their terms. If you must be punished for your sins, then Christ has not done it for you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie:
“The condemnation is targeted at the person, not the message. “If we or an angel, anyoneâ€, let “him†be accursed.”
Yes, I agree, but here is my point. I don’t think that we make the text say more than intended by the rhetoric. I do believe that Paul was saying the same thing about Peter. But I don’t think that this necessarily means that Peter was going to hell. Do you really think that Paul was saying that he was absolutely certain that those people were going to hell? I think that is going beyond the intent of the author.
“Maybe someone can tell you from the greek that what you suggest is impossible.”
I don’t know. I do have my Th.M. in Greek, but really, the Greek wording is not at issue, it is the context of the argument and the context of Paul’s rhetoric. Paul often said things that have more rhetorical force than theological preciseness. For example:
1 Timothy 6:3-5 3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
Notice, there are a few things that are relevant here:
1. “Advocates” is the issue, not simply teaching. Therefore, he is speaking of those who believe contrary.
2. “Sound words . . . the doctrine conforming to godliness.” This is much broader than what the Judizers were condemned for. In Paul’s mind, if you deviate at all, you are in serious trouble like the Judizers.
3. Notice Paul’s rhetorical hyperbole: This person “understands NOTHING.” Does Paul actually mean this? They don’t understand ANYTHING? No, it is rhetoric. Simply because you are an inspired author does not mean that you cannot utilize rhetorical devises that give strength of passion to the argument.
Paul does the same thing here when he says that “all Cretans are liars” (Titus 1:12-13).
We have to get to know Paul before we can understand him. I am not saying that I am absolutely certain about his (surprise!), but it is something that we need to wrestle with.
“Second of all, Peter was not preaching the Judaizer’s message. Paul condemned him for simply hanging out with them to the exclusion of the gentiles. To me this says that the message is so important you shouldn’t even give the appearance that you support “another gospel†in any way. That I believe applies to this ecumenism with Rome.”
But I think the force of his argument might suggest that he was using the situation to show a direct parallel. He was even willing to confront Peter when he is wrong. He will confront the Peter, Judizers, himself, or an Angel.
Michael
Like or Dislike:
0
“I have never said that heretics not excluded from the visible Church. The visible church has to do with those that the church places their approval upon. Who said that I ever said otherwise?”
OK. Then, do you *consider* the Roman Catholics to be Christians, or do you consider them to be *as* gentiles and tax-collectors? [Again, I am not asking about their eternal state. You and others on this blog have been stating that we should *consider* professing and practicing RC's to be Christians. I am saying that, on the basis of Galatians 1, we shouldn't (whether they are or not).]
Like or Dislike:
0
That first Church Council is evidence that the early Church participated in a structured hierarchy with Peter at the head and established a central teaching authority.
And yet James made the final judgment. And Jame’s name was mentioned first when Paul recounted this episode in Galatians (when Paul kept saying James, Peter and John “seemed” to by pillars, but Paul didn’t care because God shows no partiality).
And after that whole council Peter had to be rebuked by Paul for associating with the group that the council had ruled against (oops).
Sorry Felicity, not seeing it,
Like or Dislike:
0
Saint,
At my local church, we would not allow those who believed in salvation by works to be in a position of leadership or service in so far as it placed our “hands of approval” on them. In this sense, we would be treating them as “a Gentile and tax gatherer.”
Then again, neither would we for those who deny inerrancy.
You make a good point and argument that has honed in well. I was taken aback by how you progressed here and made me think. Thanks for doing so. It has clarified some things in my own thinking.
You are a good teacher.
P.S. I had to do a paper on this in seminary . . . defining what it meant in those day to be treated in the synagogue as a Gentile and tax gather. Essentially, it meant that you were excluded to the court of the Gentiles which did not mean that you were kicked out of the synagogue. You were only allowed to listen, not serve or lead. Don’t ask me to send it to you. I lost all those files from one year of seminary
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
I see the Timothy passage directed toward Godly living and Paul getting frustrated with those who go against his doctrines in that area. And I see his reaction to the judaizers as much harsher. Whether he was really condemning them to hell or just using rhetoric doesn’t change anything for me.
What I see is that denying the simple message of salvation by faith alone in Christ (no works of any kind) was something that Paul believed could absolutely not be tolerated. If the Galatians believed that they needed to be circumcized in addition to their faith in Christ, then they were severed from grace. If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Paul actually dealt with alot of mistakes with the early churchs. You have to wonder, why would just circumcision throw him into such a rampage. And you have to wonder why God chose to preserve this particular epistle for us.
Like or Dislike:
0
“You are a good teacher.”
Thank you. I find myself humbled as well.
“Essentially, it meant that you were excluded to the court of the Gentiles which did not mean that you were kicked out of the synagogue. You were only allowed to listen, not serve or lead.”
I’ll have to plead ignorance on this one. However, you’re probably right, and I don’t doubt you.
Having said that, this was during the Roman occupation when the Jews weren’t allowed to enforce the laws of the Torah. This poses a question: would such offenses have resulted in execution, the result of being excluded from the Mosaic Covenant?
“Then again, neither would we for those who deny inerrancy.”
If the modern Church had guts, we should *consider* them unbelievers as well. [Again, I don't doubt that there are many errantists who are regenerate. However, we should "deliver [them] unto Satan” for correction (1 Corinthians 5:5).]
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
I had logged of, shut down and was off to bed when I realized why you keeping focusing on the anathema.
I was not trying to say that Catholics (as modern day judaizers) are condemned to hell b/c of Paul’s words. But I do believe the severity of the sentiment is applicable to the Catholic Church. And I believe we must oppose the gospel of Rome for that reason.
Anyway, S&S did a much better job than I could of getting the point across. Excellent points, S&S.
Great discussion – I hope everyone has a great weekend!
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie, I am with you on this. Saint . . . good stuff to think about.
Like or Dislike:
0
God bless and good night.
S&S
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance and CMP:
I’d like to re-direct my previous question specifically to you two for a direct answer. This is an excerpt from a Marian prayer (that is sanctioned by Rome) that I quoted above:
“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.â€
Please indulge me with a thumbs up (approve of this prayer as being within the boundaries of proper christian worship) or a thumbs down (categorically false and idolatrous).
Please avoid answering with a subjective “Well, who can really know?”
Vance wrote: “I am glad I am not the judge of that, but I see a lot of people who seem willing to pass judgment on such issues by labeling heresy/false Gospel. I agree that we must draw the line somewhere and be willing to call a spade a spade, but where do we draw the line?”
Would this prayer be a ‘spade?’ If not, what would you call a ‘spade?’
Your thoughts?
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, who can really know?
Like or Dislike:
0
OK, in reality, if they say that prayer in the way that it sounds, then it is absolutely idolatrous. I wonder what our Catholic friends here would say. Maybe they could defend the use of this or somehow take away the sting.
I’m with you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Interestingly, I just posted this on our site from the ETS paper database that I am working through . . . slowely.
Like or Dislike:
0
Perry wrote,
“Bennett,
It was an implication drawn from your previous comment. And the Lutherans argued for centuries (still do) against the Reformed on perseverance and other points. They “outright†reject ithem. You earlier wrote that denying perseverance of the saints implies synergism and hence semi-pelagianism. By logical implication then, the Lutherans are semi-pelagian. You need to own your implications. So it is quite to the point, because you can only consistently condemn one teaching by condemning the other. But you are clearly unwilling to do so.”
I’m still waiting for you to show me where I said what you say I said. I don’t see that here. Give me a comment number or something.
I’ll be waiting . . .
Like or Dislike:
0
Perry,
Also, please understand, please, I think I’ve had to repeat this in our side conversation multiple times now. I am evaluating DOGMA. That is different from what someone within a tradition might argue. If you don’t stick to the dogma you are only complicating matters with regard to my point. In other words, if you don’t offer counterevidence and argument from dogma, then you are not arguing against anything I have said. Please stick to the point at hand.
Thanks,
Jay
Like or Dislike:
0
This conversation, again, while great, may need to move to the forum if it does not have to do with the post at hand.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/forum.
They are opened again.
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie,
I prefer to let people define how they use the terms they use. In the history of thought there are lots of different notions of what punishment constitutes-some retributive and some not. You need to remember that for Rome, Latin is still its official language and that Latin terms sometimes do not translate univocally into English. Moreover, Rome because of its belief in analogical predication doesn’t think that all theological terms carry all of their natural connotations into the realm of the supernatural. God is “father†but he is not a sexed being for example. Consequently, “punishment†carries the sense of consequences of actions, bearing remorse, etc. We see through a glass darkly after all. There is no strict carry over from natural justice to supernatural justice here. If there were, people wouldn’t be in purgatory on Rome’s understanding. This is all the more important since Rome doesn’t hold to a penal theory of the atonement, since this was a late development in medieval scholasticism and Reformation theology. Rome’s view of the atonement had already been set via Anselm, Albert, Aquinas and Scotus. So you are clearly importing notions from Protestantism into Roman theology.
As to the merits of the saints, the idea is that the “merits†are not things that the saints have done on their own that please God. Rather they are things that God has done in and through and with them(Christ IN me? Not I who live?-hardly imputational language), which is why they have “merit†that is they please God. Because they are done by the power of theological virtues like faith, hope and love, they have this pleasing character. All “merit†strictly speaking is Christ’s since he is the head of the body and so all merit is derivable and ultimately ascribable to him. He does what pleases his Father.
All of that said, I do not believe in the Roman doctrine of purgatory nor in the treasury of merit. Those idea, like sola fide, a penal theory of atonement, imputed guilt and created righteousness are all creations of the medieval era after the West fell to the Frankish hordes. All I am trying to do here is point out that you will not manage to be persuasive to informed and thinking opponents if you do not take the time to master their system from the inside out, understand their terms and concepts and their historical development.
Anyone can quote, but not anyone can understand. Spooftexting isn’t an argument.
If you don’t care how Catholics define their terms then simply stated you are not interested in being fair or charitable. Treat others how you might wish to be treated. It always amazes me that those who decry an infallible interpretive authority are those who act as if they have it. You could be wrong. Try to be a tad more tolerant. You might earn some respect. (1 Pet 3:15)
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry Michael,
I just thought I might try to deflect some of Perry’s attempts to sidetrack some key points that carrie and I initially made on the post. But alas, the sideswiping swiped me up too.
Apologies,
Jay
Like or Dislike:
0
No problem at all. It is a great discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0
Perry,
I don’t appreciate you claiming that I am purposely misrepresenting the teachings of Rome.
My point was that all that you said is Catholic semantics. It’s a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
I agree, anyone quote but not everyone can understand. That takes looking beyond the words and understanding the implications of what is said. That is where you seem to be failing.
Like or Dislike:
0
~~That first Church Council is evidence that the early Church participated in a structured hierarchy with Peter at the head and established a central teaching authority.~ Carrie
*************
Acts 15
2 Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
3 They were sent on their journey by the church,…
4 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
…….
12
The whole assembly fell silent,
***************
At Peter’s words, the whole assembly listened. Peter refers to his appointment by God. There is a structured hierarchical early church that sends Paul and Barnabas out and calls them back. Peter speaks with authority first—and the assembly listens.
~~And yet James made the final judgment. ~Carrie
Sure—after Peter already said that the Gentiles were to be welcomed. Of course James followed the authority laid out by Peter. Peter said:
*************
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” 5
****************
James even acknowledges this by stating Peter (Symeon) was the recipient of Divine Revelation:
**************
James responded, “My brothers, listen to me.
14 Symeon 7 has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.
15 The words of the prophets agree with this,
It is no doubt that James would make the final statement because it was James (Gal. 2:12) who believed that the Church needed to follow the laws of Judaism while Paul said otherwise. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, so he delivers the “pastoral†teaching, while PETER is the leader that clarified how the Church would accept Gentiles per his revelation from God as the binding doctrinal teaching.
***************
~~And Jame’s name was mentioned first when Paul recounted this episode in Galatians (when Paul kept saying James, Peter and John “seemed†to by pillars, but Paul didn’t care because God shows no partiality). ~Carrie
If it’s an “order and numbers†game, I’m sure you are well aware that Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT, with John (not James) a distant second at 29. Also, Peter is always listed first among the apostles—often he is the only one listed as in “Peter and the rest of the apostles.†As for Paul’s writing style…he is a polemic and often conveys his irritation with particular things going on. Does it surprise you that Saul of Tarsus—the rabid persecutor of Christians—has a prickly personality?…
~~And after that whole council Peter had to be rebuked by Paul for associating with the group that the council had ruled against (oops). ~Carrie
….And just as you should not be surprised by Paul’s particular personality, you should not be surprised that Peter, the man who swore he would never deny Christ and then denied Him 3 times within hours, would go a little wishy-washy at times. The wonderful thing about Peter is his humility and his willingness to be corrected—that is a gift of the Holy Spirit—and that willingness is why he is so appropriate to lead the Church. He is a humble SERVANT of servants who can hear the direction of God and act accordingly and lead appropriately protected from error by God.
~~Sorry Felicity, not seeing it,~Carrie
I’m sorry too, since it is all right there in the Bible.
The whole point of this is that the issue that C Michael Patton takes with the latest document out of the Vatican is simply the leadership of the Church in their pastoral role leading its flock with consistent instruction. It’s the job the hierarchy was given by Jesus Himself and protected from error by the Advocate that continues from the early Church to the present day Church.
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie–sorry, that first quote is something I said and you quoted in your reply. I don’t want ayone to misattribute that to you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie,
Good morning.
At first I didn’t imply that you were deliberately doing so but were making common mistakes. This is why I was trying to help you not to make them. But then you stated that you didn’t care what Catholics meant by their terms, and so it then seemed to me that you didn’t care what the facts were and so we determined to convict them of heresy. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! You seemed to not want to be confused by the facts. If you don’t appreciate people thinking that you are misrepresenting a position deliberately, then don’t write that you don’t care what the facts are.
And do you think others appreciate being spoken to like they are stupid? Its right there in front of my face? As if my problem was that I couldn’t grasp the meaning of words? Speaking of which, you are right, it is an issue of semantics, but you are misusing the term semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning and I keep pointing out to you that your criticisms miss their target and hit only a straw man because they aren’t using the terms they way you are. In any case, its best to leave personal attacks out of the discussion and stick with the arguments.
And I can draw implications just fine. I teach logic. In any case, you need to do more than merely claim that I have failed to draw the proper implications, you need to demonstrate it. Otherwise its an unsupported claim.
Like or Dislike:
0
I know that I am a softy as far as moderation is concerned, but let’s keep this from being a debate area. The forum is best suited for that.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry CMP, I hope you will allow me this.
Perry,
You need to follow your own advice. You are the one that came out attacking me with absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.
I have provided quotes from Catholic material and given my opinions on it. People can decide what they want from that material and do their own research.
Now, if I could even understand what your objections are to my use of purgatory perhaps I could address them and perhaps learn something from you. But at this point I am uninterested in any further discussion with you.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Like or Dislike:
0
Here’s a good article on the topic at hand.
Like or Dislike:
0
Second try:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/july/19.20.html
Like or Dislike:
0
Seven, just back in town:
As to you Marian prayer, I would definitely say it was false, in error, and possibly even idolotrous (depending on how that was defined). But my question would still be whether a person who is that wrong in their theological understanding of how it all works, could still go to heaven. That I don’t know. My real question would be for a Catholic since Catholics also affirm that their entire salvation is through Jesus Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, it is a great question. I wish that a Catholic would pipe in and help us understand.
Like or Dislike:
0
Catholic Marian prayers are (needless to say) vastly misunderstood, because Protestants (unlike their founders) hardly have any Mariology at all anymore. They rarely understand even the basics of Mariology. It’s like trying to understand trigonometry and calculus without learning your times tables. NOT likely . . .
I wrote about some of these prayers and how they are wildly misinterpreted in these papers:
Does St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in The Glories of Mary, Teach That Mary is “Above God” and Can “Manipulate God”? (Corrections of Protestant Misunderstandings of Catholic Mariology)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/does-st-alphonsus-de-liguori-in-glories.html
“The Lost Liguori”: The Nefarious Protestant Conspiracy to Conceal St. Alphonsus’ Christocentric Mariology
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/03/lost-liguori-nefarious-protestant.html
Like or Dislike:
0
“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.â€
You can at least see how Protestants would interpret this prayer as idolatry?
Don’t get me wrong, when a Catholic tells me “I don’t worship Mary” I believe them. Why would they say they don’t if they do. But this prayer, if it is not a surrendering of trust due only to God, it sure comes across such a way. You must understand where the Protestant protest comes from. As well, it seems to be highly suggestive and provocative toward Mary worship, especially for someone who first encounters it.
My suggestion: get rid of it or drastically reword it.
I don’t have much a problem with the Catholic understanding of the communion to the saints, or even prayer to the saints in the sense that you are simply asking them to pray for you . . . don’t do it, but I don’t think of it as saint worship necessarily. But this prayer is different.
Hope you understand where I am coming from.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Why would they say they don’t if they do.”
To get around the Commandment.
Before I was a Christian, I would have said that I didn’t worship the sexual sin of lust, but in reality, I did.
Greedy people *say* that they don’t worship money, but they do.
The latria/dulia dichotomy is a distinction without a difference. It’s true that dulia is used in the Bible as “to serve” someone, like the king.
**However, everytime dulia or its variants are used in cultic (i.e. religious) context, the verb is used synonymously with “to worship,” and every time it is not given to God, it is condemned as idolatry.**
“even prayer to the saints in the sense that you are simply asking them to pray for you”
It’s not damnable if it is done in ignorance, but attributing omniscience to a created being is a bit blasphemous. Early Christians prayed *for* departed saints, not *to* them.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, the Apostle Paul states several times that he was helping to save people or being a channel for them to receive divine grace. If it was okay for him to do, why not Mary, the mother of Jesus our Lord?:
1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12,17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.
Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you… (cf. 1 Pet 4:8-10)
Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.
1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
“Entrust[ing] [your] soul” to a human being gives you pause? Okay, there is Bible sanction for that too (or at least something very similar):
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
So if someone wants to claim the Catholic prayer in question is Mariolatry, fine, but let them be consistent and say that the Bible teaches “Paulolatry” as well, if this is the reasoning. Of course no Protestant will say that, but since the Bible gives sanction to Pauline “saving” and “distribution of graces” then no one can say that the Theotokos participating in the same sort of thing is prima facie “unbiblical”.
If the Catholic Marian prayers were properly understood and interpreted correctly in the first place, the issue would never come up, but because Protestants have no frame of reference in which to interpret them (having not been taught any degree of Mariology to speak of at all), then they automatically view it as a species of idolatry, which it is NOT.
I say that — rightly understood — Catholic teachings do not contradict the biblical understanding of things at all. We believe, with James, that “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16). Therefore, if indeed Mary is sinless (taught in Luke 1:28, closely examined and exegeted, as I have done), and God’s highest creation, then her prayers would be uniquely powerful (just as Elijah’s were, that James refers to); hence this sort of flowery language is perfectly acceptable. One goes to the person whose prayers of intercession have the most power.
Elsewhere in the prayer “Our Lady of Perpetual Help” it is made clear the origin of this extraordinary power of intercession that Mary has:
“I give thanks to our Lord, who for my sake hath given thee a name so sweet, so lovable, so mighty. . . . He hath made thee so powerful, so rich, so kind, that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Dave, those examples are so different from the Mary prayer it alleviates no problems. Believe me, like I said, I am more than willing to give the benifit of a doubt, but, in all honesty, that seems rather far out to say that this prayer to Mary, “In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul†and Paul self conception concerning his role in preaching the Gospel here on earth are parallel. Are you asking Mary to come and preach the Gospel to people?
Anyway, again, you must understand how difficult it sounds. I don’t see why you can’t just get rid of the prayer in favor of something different if it is not what it seems to be. This would help people from getting confused and accusing you of things you don’t do. The prayer is not inspired in your view is it?
All that I am asking is that you at least consider how difficult it is and not write people off acting as if we just understood what you were saying it would make all the difference. I think I do understand what you are saying, but the prayer still says something different in good ol’ Oklahoman
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, I used to be an evangelical Protestant. You’re not telling me anything new. I had to work through many of these same issues in order to become a Catholic. Were you ever a Catholic? If one used to firmly believe one thing, then they knew it from the inside. I was not just a Protestant, but a Protestant apologist and cult researcher. I was on the largest Christian radio station in Detroit talking about Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Protestant in 1989. So I know where you’re coming from, and I understand the Protestant outlook through and through.
Your choice is simple: you can go the same old tired route (the stuff you say you believed just five years ago) and conclude that Catholics are idolaters who are so stupid and clueless that we don’t even know that Mary is different from Jesus, or you can accept the validity of the reasoning I have given you (and additional explanations from others) or at least acknowledge that there are issues here that are difficult to understand at first but that it is not nonsense and idolatry. The prayer is going nowhere. It has a long tradition and it is perfectly orthodox.
You say we should just get rid of it? By the same token I could say, “why don’t you get rid of one or more beliefs from TULIP, since Calvinists are vastly misunderstood and don’t really believe what many people attribute to them (making God the author of evil; making evangelistic efforts null and void, turning men into will-less automatons, etc.)? You wouldn’t do that, on those grounds, so why do you think it is reasonable that we would do so?
I have no problem saying that it is tough for a Protestant to comprehend. Of course it is. I already dealt with that in my previous responses by saying that one can’t comprehend trigonometry without first learning their basic arithmetic.
Mariology is not Christian kindergarten; it is advanced studies in Christian graduate school.
“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul†and Paul self conception concerning his role in preaching the Gospel here on earth are parallel. Are you asking Mary to come and preach the Gospel to people?
You have not properly understood the analogy that I made. Paul’s saying that he “saved” people and telling Timothy that he can “save” his hearers (when we all know that it is God Who does the saving and Paul is only a vessel of same) is precisely the same that we think of Mary. The logic is exactly the same:
1. Paul: “I might save some . . . save both yourself and your hearers”.
2. (the logical converse) Spiritual seeker: “Paul, please save me by your powerful intercession and distribution of God’s grace. In your hands I place my seeking after eternal salvation because I know your intervention on my behalf is profoundly powerful.”
3. Ergo: logical equivalent of saying to Mary: “In thy hands I place my eternal salvation” because if the thought is “If Paul and Timothy [human beings] can ‘save’ other human beings, then clearly there is a dynamic at work far different from just God alone and the person being saved. God uses human beings in the process.”
In other words, if Paul can say that he saves others, then others can ask him to save them, and we are in exactly the same place where the Marian prayer takes us. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Paul didn’t even see Jesus before the Resurrection. So if this is true of Paul, it can certainly be true of Mary.
Yet you say, “those examples are so different from the Mary prayer it alleviates no problems.” I disagree; it is a close analogy. We know that Paul doesn’t ultimately save anyone; it is God. Catholics know the same about Mary. It is only by attributing gross ignorance to Catholics en masse (even to many of our greatest theologians) that Protestants come up with the hogwash that they do about our supposed Mariolatry.
The real lack of knowledge and sufficient thought and reflection is seen, rather, in a statement like the one above: “attributing omniscience to a created being is a bit blasphemous.” But of course no one is doing that! Saints in heaven do not have to have all knowledge in order to hear prayers. They are in eternity, with God. They’re out of time. That completely solves that problem. It doesn’t require omniscience at all, but merely being in another sphere in terms of time or dimensions. Someone thinks that is insufficient? Very well, then, read what your own Protestant theologians and Bible commentators say about the relationship of time and eternity and how we will be like Jesus when we get to heaven. It’s a perfectly plausible, biblical, acceptable understanding of the afterlife. It’s sheer foolishness to make out that such a scenario requires a saint to be omniscient and therefore God-like.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dave, I appreciate that you have been on the other side, but this does not seem to be helping. In fact, it might be hindering. I think that from your perspective you feel that it is your duty to justify all those things that you had a problem with before without recognizing the extent of the problem. If reformation does not come for you in doctrine, can’t it come in communication? Again, I take you at your word when you say you don’t worship Mary. Worship is a subjective entrustment of our lives to a source in which we have ultimate reliance. We have non-ultimate reliances in our lives such as our cars to get us to work, our fathers to protect us when we are young, etc. All reliances are secondary to the primary. This I understand. Our ultimate reliance for Salvation does not come through anything other than God, although we do rely upon other people to have their secondary part in God’s plan. If you are simply saying that Mary is a secondary reliance like all others secondary reliances (albeit, a very good one), I take you at your word.
In this case, the problem is first one of communication.
You say that this:
“[Mary] In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.â€
Really means this:
“[Mary] In thy hands I place the hope of my eternal salvation since you are one of the many who can pray to the One who can save me and to you I entrust my soul since your are one of the many who can intercede through prayer on my behalf to the One who can take care of my soul.”
You see. You are having to jump through hoops here to explain the first. All I am saying is be sensitive to the concerns of those who just take the first at face value. Make the first say the second and it would alleviate yourself of having to write books to justify the first.
To compare this with Calvinism is helpful to a degree, but in its present form presents a non seq. In other word, TULIP is what it is. It does not have to explain itself to take away the sting of miscommunication. In fact, once you do explain TULIP you find that there is integrity in communication because it means exactly what it says. The problem does not have to do in communicating its points at face value, but the interpretation of its implications.
For example, if you were to say that this is one of the points of Calvinism, then there would be a parallel:
God is responsible for sin.
Indeed, this is problematic. There are very few Calvinists who would actually go this far with it. Now, they may communicate it as such, but then they would, like you, have to jump through hoops to explain that this does not mean what it seems to mean. They may say this:
God is responsible for sin only in the since that he is the creator of free will beings that choose to sin, but He Himself is not the ultimate first cause of its genesis.
Here is what I would tell a Calvinist (of which I am one) who has as part of his regular confession the first. Don’t say it!! It miscommunicates what you mean. Just say what you mean! If you don’t, you will do two things. 1) You will scare people away because they have simply thought you meant what you said (who would blame the), or 2) You are going to cause some of your own to actually believe that God is the creator of sin and promote this doctrine as such.
This is the same with many issues and confessions in Mariology. You scare people away based upon a perfectly understandable misreading of your doctrine based upon popular communication and, in some cases, you cause your own to fall into idolatry simply because they take this at face value.
Not that I have any platform to give advice Dave, but I would try to see this first as a theologian and a pastor, rather than an apologist. It seems that as an apologist you are seeking to justify this prayer as it is, failing to recognize how it communicates.
Again, I really appreciate your willingness to dialogue.
Like or Dislike:
0
To Dave Armstrong: You make some very good points comparing Mary to Paul in terms of helping people to be “saved.” I do wonder, though, about saying that Luke 1:28 backs up the belief that Mary was sinless. The NIV states it as “The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” I wouldn’t take that as saying Mary was sinless. I am not a theologian and cannot say any of this for sure, but I think maybe the view of Mary as having been conceived without sin (Immaculate Conception) was because ancient Christian theologians found it difficult to think that God (as Jesus) would ever be born from a regular “sinful” human being. Personally, I find it wonderful. And I think that Mary was likely a very wonderful human being and was the perfect mom for Jesus. Her family as a whole must have been very close to God. John (the Baptist) was said to have been filled with grace from his birth. Did that make HIM sinless? Jesus said that John was the greatest person born of woman.
I think part of the reason Catholics feel that they can pray to Mary and ask “favors” is that at the wedding in Cana, Mary asked Jesus to help the people out by making wine for them when they had run out. Jesus could have done that without his mom asking him to do it though. Jesus also provided care for his mom even as he was dying on the cross. So we know that he had respect for her. I, personally, do not think that we need to ever go through anyone to have God hear us. If it helps some people to visualize the mother of God helping them with their prayers, I don’t know that that is a terrible thing though. AS LONG AS they know that it is Jesus who saves.
(Dave, I was brought us as a Catholic. I don’t know what I am now though. Just someone ATTEMPTING to do as Jesus wants.)
Joanie D
Like or Dislike:
0
[i]John.19
[26] When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
[27] Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.[/i]
Mary is our mother. Jesus gave us to Mary as our spiritual guardian. Just as when we are infants, our entire physical well-being is entrusted to another human being (our earthly mother) in order that she might protect, guide, and nurture us as we grow, Mary is entrusted with our eternal soul.
[i]“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul†[/i]
In my earthly mother’s hands, I placed my physical life and entrusted her with my well-being.
In my heavenly mother’s hands, I place my eternal salvation, and entrust her with the well-being of my soul.
Some earthly mother’s fail their children and do not care for them properly.
The mother to whom the Father entrusted the physical well-being of His only Begotten Son, will not fail to do in perfect obedience to God, the Will of God. It’s a guarentee. Mary can be trusted to help me grow in such a way that my salvation will come about in the fullness of time. She doesn’t “save” me–Jesus does–but she nurtures me and guides me to his saving grace just as she nurtured and cared for the Son of God right up until His crucifixion in the fullness of time. She was with Him at the foot of the cross, and she leads me there.
Like or Dislike:
0
This is the same with many issues and confessions in Mariology. You scare people away based upon a perfectly understandable misreading of your doctrine based upon popular communication and, in some cases, you cause your own to fall into idolatry simply because they take this at face value. ~CMP
***But who’s responsibility is it? Does God call the Church to temper its language for man, or does God call man to hear the truth of God? Just as in John 6, Jesus refused to temper His language when He said, “My flesh is true food, my blood is true drink,” and he allowed disciples who refused to hear the truth of God to walk away, the Church is not responsible to make truth more palitable to those who lack faith. The truth is the truth and trust is trust.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Michael,
That was an interesting psychological-sociological analysis of my argument; now would you like to actually interact with the argument itself?
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Joanie,
Thanks for your comment. The argument from Luke 1:28 regarding Mary’s sinlessness is a lot more involved than the passage suggests at first glance. Here are some papers of mine, if you want to see the full argument:
Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/07/luke-128-full-of-grace-immaculate.html
Dialogue on the Exegesis of Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”), and the Immaculate Conception (Dave Armstrong vs. Ken Temple)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/07/dialogue-on-exegesis-of-luke-128-full.html
Dialogue with an Evangelical Protestant on Catholic Mariology (including an explicitly biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, from Luke 1:28, related exegesis, and the meaning of grace) (Dave Armstrong vs. Jack DisPennett)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/dialogue-with-evangelical-protestant-on.html
Like or Dislike:
0
Dave, as I have said from the beginning, I don’t have THAT big of a problem with what you mean, but the misleading way in which it is communicated. The ball in in yo’ court my friend.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve already answered. The devotion will not and should not change simply because it is misunderstood and because Protestantism has a virtually nonexistent Mariology. And I showed that it also was unreasonable to say that it should, based on an analogy to your own belief-system.
Substantive dialogue deals with the objective assertions of the opponent at some point, rather than merely subjective, stylistic issues and how things are received. Postmodernism (you said on White’s webcast that your bookshelf is filled with this sort of thing) clearly is influencing you to the detriment of your argumentation here. It’s all subjective and little objective analysis of objective stuff.
My method, on the other hand, is to use Scripture and logic, and history where necessary.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dave, again, I think you are too caught up in your apologetic defenses here. I am simply offering a suggestion to you. It is fine if you don’t agree, but my points were valid and not relativistic in the slightest. There was no response from you concerning your non seq with Calvinism and Paul.
I argued that your comparison to Calvinism had no parallel. The same with regards to your reference to Paul. If you don’t believe me, this is fine, everyone has the right to be wrong
The prayer has no interpretive context. Because of this, people have to take it at face value. You interpret the face value meaning much differently, which is fine (and a bit relativistic), and then say that it is Protestants fault for mistakingly thinking Catholics worship Mary. Like it or not, the prayer does suggest this.
Dave, while I know you cannot reform in doctrine, you can reform in communication. The “it says this, but it really means this” is confusing both to Catholics and Protestants.
If you are going to teach and defend the prayer, I would rework it. Do you think that Mary will really get THAT upset?
Just think about what I am saying, that is all I ask.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Some Mary quotes for you since you are waffling on this one. All from Popes:
“The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us,”
“Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.”"
“By the fullness of grace which confers on her the most illustrious of her many titles, the Blessed Virgin is infinitely superior to all the hierarchies of men and angels, the one creature who is closest of all to Christ. “It is a great thing in any saint to have grace sufficient for the salvation of many souls; but to have enough to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world, is the greatest of all; and this is found in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin.”"
“The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
“Those, alas! furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it, who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin. Hapless are they who neglect Mary under pretext of the honor to be paid to Jesus Christ! As if the Child could be found elsewhere than with the Mother!”
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Carrie,
Wouldn’t you agree that these quotes give the impression that Mary is worshipped?
Like or Dislike:
0
There was no response from you concerning your non seq with Calvinism and Paul.
Huh? I made a very extensive response. Obviously you disagreed with it, but that is far different from claiming I made “no response.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Wouldn’t you agree that these quotes give the impression that Mary is worshipped?
The prayers, the statues, the crowns on the statues, feast, etc. Yes, similar behavior to pagan worship can be seen. In fact, in a conversation with an Indian women I worked with, she asked “who are the ones that worship Maryâ€.
Even if we take Catholics at their word that they don’t “worship†Mary, the teachings of the church still place her at a much too elevated level – mediatrix between man and Christ. She is the mediator of ALL graces as the quotes above state. Since Catholics need to “tap into†graces to maintain/recover their salvation, that is a big problem.
It appears not only are the sacraments required for salvation, but Mary also.
Like or Dislike:
0
To Dave Armstrong: wow, there are a LOT of articles on your webpage to read! I started with one you pointed out:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/dialogue-with-evangelical-protestant-on.html
I see that the person you were “debating” writes, “John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb.” I have wondered about that scripture passage as well. If anyone seems to have been “sinless” it seems to be John and Jesus says that John is the greatest person born of woman. It seems that he puts John even above his mother when he says that. I guess we need to decide what being “filled with the Holy Spirit” means. Does it mean one will never sin? Does it mean one has never sinned? Does it mean one does not have “original sin?” And, what do we mean by “original sin?” Do we mean that we are born with a propensity to sin which means we “miss the mark” in living the way God would want us to live? Does it mean we are lead by evil? Does it mean we are born with a sense of separateness from God that we can only resolve by accepting God’s grace through Jesus? These are important questions in my mind.
Folks talk about being “filled with the Holy Spirit.” Does that mean they are ALWAYS filled with the Holy Spirit? As Christians, we say we have the Holy Spirit within us. But is it always FILLING us or are we getting in the way of the Spirit working in us and filling us so that we will never “miss the mark” and so that we will walk the way God intended, with fullness of love for God and all humankind?
I have a feeling not many will read this comment as this topic has become so long now! I, too, give up after a while on the long ones. But Dave, I will return to your webpages from time to time to do more reading. I can see you have studied these matters deeply and I know it is worth my time to read the writings of people who have studied the subhect so well. Thanks for your time!
Take care,
Joanie D.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Joanie,
Lots of great questions! I feel it would be inappropriate for me to answer questions like that on another blog where I am a guest and an “outsider”, so to speak, so I’ll leave that to Michael and the others here (and they are far more theologically educated than I am, anyway, and would likely do a better job at it).
Thanks for your very kind words. I have over 1600 papers or web pages on my blog.
It’s the result of over ten years of continuous apologetic writing on the Internet (and some papers go back as far as 1982, when I was an evangelical Protestant).
You’re welcome on my blog (as is anyone else). I can’t always answer direct questions that deserve in-depth answers, as yours do (esp. now that I have an additional full-time job completely unrelated to my ministry). But almost always other blog regulars will chime in when questions are asked.
Like or Dislike:
0
Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read anything such as this prior to. So good to locate somebody with several original concepts on this subject. realy i appreciate you for starting this up. this fabulous site is one location that is required online, someone with a bit of originality. beneficial purpose of bringing a new challenge towards web!
More Comments: