Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[PhilVaz]

AugH << John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” >>

I think the opposite saying has to be this:

“A church with 15 years of history, which teaches the doctrines of the apostles, is better than a church with 1500 years of history [or 2000 years?], which claims a historical succession from the apostles, but contradicts what the apostles taught.” – Jason Engwer, from his article “Why We Should Look to the Bible Rather Than the Early Church Fathers”

Phil P

 

[Pax]

PhilVaz:

AugH << John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” >>

I think the opposite saying has to be this:

“A church with 15 years of history, which teaches the doctrines of the apostles, is better than a church with 1500 years of history [or 2000 years?], which claims a historical succession from the apostles, but contradicts what the apostles taught.” – Jason Engwer, from his article “Why We Should Look to the Bible Rather Than the Early Church Fathers”

Phil P

I don’t think I’ll waste my time on this one!

 

[PhilVaz]

Pax << I don’t think I’ll waste my time on this one! >>

My summary:

“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.” – you know who, circa 1845

“To be shallow in history, is to follow the doctrines of the apostles.” – JasonTE, circa 1998

 

[AugustineH354]

Hello Phil, Richard, and Jason,

First, I think Phil and Richard stand on solid ground concerning St. Augustine’s position on the IC of Mary (see links provided). And Newman wrote: “St. Augustine says that all have sinned, ‘except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, for the honour of the Lord, I wish no question to be raised at all, when we are treating sins.’” (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 4.2.11, p. 146 in Univ. of Notre Dame Press ed.).

Second, Jason posted:

Jason:>>You claim that “attacks of heresy” would result in a doctrine being “defined”.>>

Actually that was Newman’s claim (though I concur with it). Here, again, is the quote I provided”

Newman stated that, “No doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy.” And again, “No doctrine is defined till it is violated.”>>

I think Jason is attempting to read way too much into Newman’s words. Newman does not argue that immediately following “attacks/violations” of doctrine that said doctrine/doctrines are defined, but rather that doctrines are defined because there have been “attacks/violations”. Further, Newman does not deny that errors in theology exist throughout history among Catholic theologians when writing on undefined doctrine/doctrines. Hardly! In fact, Newman cites many such examples, and uses such examples to formulate his theory of development. I think what bothers Jason (and even some of us Catholics) is that we do no always understand the timing of the Holy Spirit when it comes to the when of doctrinal definitions(Indeed, how can our finite minds fully grasp that which is infinite?)

Anyway, I would once again like to extend to Jason (and anyone else who may be interested) an invitation to discuss Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Perhaps a thread could/should be started if such interest is entertained.

Aug

 

[JasonTE]

I was accused of misrepresenting Pope Pius IX, but without any documentation. Since no evidence was given by the person accusing me of misrepresentation, why is anybody supposed to believe him?

PhilVaz claims to “demolish” and “annihilate”, in some articles at other web sites, what I’ve said about the sinlessness of Mary and the veneration of images. His article about Mary is described as an excerpt from his debate with me. Anybody can read my response to his claims in that debate:

members.aol.com/jasonte3/debate2.htm

PhilVaz doesn’t tell us how the article about the veneration of images supposedly refutes what I’ve said. I was addressing the veneration of images, not the use of images, so what’s the relevance of the catacombs? Some of the ante-Nicene fathers did oppose even the use of images, but I wasn’t addressing that subject. And citing support for the veneration of images by fathers from the fourth century onward is irrelevant, since I said I was contrasting opposition to the practice among the earlier fathers to support for it among the later fathers. How does citing later fathers refute what I said? It doesn’t. Even such a conservative Roman Catholic source as Ludwig Ott will acknowledge the ante-Nicene church’s opposition to the veneration of images:

“Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36).” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 320)

Yet, the RCC claimed (in the Catechism of Trent, for example) that the veneration of images is an apostolic tradition always held by the church. Now, does PhilVaz want to respond to these facts in a way that’s relevant?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

Regarding Augustine’s view of Mary, let me quote J.N.D. Kelly:

“he [Augustine] did not hold (as has sometimes been alleged) that she [Mary] was born exempt from all taint of original sin (the later doctrine of the immaculate conception). Julian of Eclanum maintained this as a clinching argument in his onslaught on the whole idea of original sin, but Augustine’s rejoinder was that Mary had indeed been born subject to original sin like all other human beings, but had been delivered from its effects ‘by the grace of rebirth’.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 497)

It was suggested, by somebody in this thread, that another passage I cited from Augustine doesn’t refer to Mary being conceived in sin. But it does. The passage (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48) refers to Christ being the only post-Adamic human conceived without original sin. Augustine approvingly quotes another church father, Ambrose. One of his quotes of Ambrose specifically mentions Mary, so it can’t be argued that they didn’t have Mary in mind at the time that they wrote. After quoting Ambrose, Augustine comments that Ambrose’s view is consistent with “the catholic faith”:

“And now that we are about to bring this book to a conclusion, we think it proper to do on this subject of Original Sin what we did before in our treatise On Grace, --adduce in evidence against the injurious talk of these persons that servant of God, the Archbishop Ambrose, whose faith is proclaimed by Pelagius to be the most perfect among the writers of the Latin Church; for grace is more especially honoured in doing away with original sin. In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: ‘I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam,–so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may be also justified in Christ.’ Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: ‘We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ Hence it is that Paul’s flesh is ‘a body of death;’ even as he says himself, ‘Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?’ Christ’s flesh, however, has condemned sin, which He experienced not by being born, and which byy dying He crucified, that in our flesh there might be justification through grace, where previously there was impurity through sin.’ The same holy man also, in his Exposition Isaiah, speaking of Christ, says: ‘Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things; but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind.’ Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: ‘It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.’ These words, however, of the man of God are contradicted by Pelagius, notwithstanding all his commendation of his author, when he himself declares that ‘we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.’ What remains, then, but that Pelagius should condemn and renounce this error of his; or else be sorry that he has quoted Ambrose in the way he has? Inasmuch, however, as the blessed Ambrose, catholic bishop as he is, has expressed himself in the above-quoted passages in accordance with the catholic faith, it follows that Pelagius, along with his disciple Coelestius, was justly condemned by the authority of the catholic Church for having turned aside from the true way of faith, since he repented not for having bestowed commendation on Ambrose, and for having at the same time entertained opinions in opposition to him.” (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48)

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:

“The Augustinian view long continued to prevail; but at last Pelagius won the victory on this point in the Roman church.” (ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm , section 81)

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

By the way, I can cite one church father after another, in the East and West, who denied that Mary was sinless from conception onward (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Ephraim, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, etc.). And these fathers often refer to how their view of Mary is widespread or universal. They give no indication that they’re opposing some apostolic tradition held by the church, but instead they suggest that their view of Mary being a sinner is itself orthodoxy. People like PhilVaz repeatedly take the fathers out of context to make it seem that they supported the sinlessness of Mary or some alleged seed form of the doctrine. They cite people like Ephraim and Augustine referring to the sinlessness of Mary, but they often don’t explain that those same fathers refer to Mary as a sinner in other places. In other words, the sinlessness they were referring to was a period of sinlessness, not a sinlessness that lasted throughout her life.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << People like PhilVaz repeatedly take the fathers out of context to make it seem that they supported the sinlessness of Mary or some alleged seed form of the doctrine. >>

I enjoy the back and forth, and your persistence. I suggest this: everyone go to a library, take out the 3 volume set Mariology edited by Juniper Carol (I’ve done that), and read all it says on the Fathers and the history of the Immaculate Conception (I’ve done that), and you will conclude the (Roman) Catholic Church was fully justified in defining the Immaculate Conception in 1854. The articles in there deal with those who seem to go against the belief, and the development of the belief in the history of the Church. It is all covered in those volumes.

The other book I’ve heard that is rather complete (but don’t have yet) is by Archbishop Ullathorne The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God.

Yep, that pretty much demolishes and annihilates everything JasonTE writes on the IC.

As for the early church and icons/images, you quoted Ludwig Ott:

“Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. …”

Fine, that explains it. The early Christians did not want their images of Christ, Mary or the saints to be confused with paganism, so at first it was rejected by some, then later permitted.

Jason, I don’t see the point of any of this, since you are an evangelical “baptistic” type who would gladly toss the bishops, the priests, the apostolic succession, the primacy of Rome, the eucharist, baptism, confession, sacramental worldview, the salvation/justification theology of the Fathers, all goes out the window. You don’t believe in any of that.

Some contradictions in the Fathers are a given, but you have exaggerated the “amount” of contradictions in your CBNRC series. It does not do a thing to demonstrate “evangelicalism” is true or that “we should look to the Bible rather than the early Church Fathers” as you titled one of your earlier articles.

Here is the full quote of Newman:

"And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

"And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it.

“It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicaea and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiatical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon. TO BE DEEP IN HISTORY IS TO CEASE TO BE A PROTESTANT.”

(Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, page 7-8)

You say to the contrary: to have a church that is 15 years old, that is, to be shallow in history, is to follow the doctrines of the Bible as you interpret them. I’ll stick with Newman, thanks.

Don’t answer me, deal with AugH, he’s more interesting and he seems to want to spend time discussing Cardinal Newman’s book with you Perhaps another thread on that.

Phil P

 

[Pax]

PhilVaz:

Pax << I don’t think I’ll waste my time on this one! >>

My summary:

“To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.” – you know who, circa 1845

“To be shallow in history, is to follow the doctrines of the apostles.” – JasonTE, circa 1998

I really think I owe you an apology. I was tired when I responded and my thinking a bit muddled. I really should have given you the thumbs up and added a bit to it. I’ve gotten a hair frustrated at times with this particular line of argument which has tremendous merit. I am a vocal part of your choir but the voice of history seems too often to be falling on deaf ears.

Again, I apologize. You are the man on this one

 

[SPH1]

It appears that JasonTE has the easier road in these debates. For he doesn’t have to PROVE the truth of Protestantism in general, or even his particular brand. All he has to do is find some ECF who supposedly contradicts the Catholic Church.

JasonTE doesn’t offer anything.

Nor does “proving” the Catholic Church wrong establish that he is correct. For both Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism could be wrong.

It should be noted that there are those (mostly non-Christians) who point out that the Gospels themselves “contradict” one another.

Protestants contradict one another. Even Presbyterians contradict one another.

I took a gander at JasonTE’s rebuttal to Phil here: members.aol.com/jasonte3/je7.htm

JasonTE:

A council such as Nicaea is authoritative, whereas a council like Ariminum is not, because one is supported by scripture and the other one isn’t. Protestant churches cite as authoritative the Apostles’ Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Westminster Confession, and other sources that postdate the apostles. But why do they cite those post-apostolic sources? Because they’re just as authoritative as scripture? No, but because they’re authoritative as accurate representations of scriptural teaching.

Catholic teaching is supported by scripture. As JasonTE quotes St. Athanasius, “However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions [used by those who oppose Arianism] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine.”

But this isn’t what I really want to get into. No, I’m more interested in JasonTE’s statement that the Westminster Confession is on par with the Creeds.

Let’s take a look at WCF, CHAP. XXIII. -* Of the Civil Magistrate:*
freechurch.org/muir/wcf.htm

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

This would warm the hearts of the Taliban. One of the darkest documents ever penned by man. It basically calls for the State suppression of everything except the Reformed Protestant Religion. Especially suppression of the Catholic Church.

Note that this isn’t just some passing statement. It is elevated to the status of the Creeds, as JasonTE states. No wonder most Presbyterian Churches in the USA have a revised version, taking this out. It would be treasonous, as against our Constitution.

My question: Where does JasonTE get this out of the NT?

There is no authority whatsoever for placing the WCF on the level of the Catholic Creeds; nothing whatsoever for believing it accurately reflects Scripture.

In the end, only the Catholic Church can define what reflects Scripture.

 

[PhilVaz]

Pax << I am a vocal part of your choir but the voice of history seems too often to be falling on deaf ears. Again, I apologize. You are the man on this one >>

Thanks for the compliment. I would find a discussion between AugH and JasonTE on Newman’s book interesting, but I don’t think JasonTE reads too many Catholic books (well just the ones he can use in his anti-Catholic arguments, like Schatz and Eno for example on the Papacy, ignoring John Chapman and Luke Rivington).

Phil P

 

[JPrejean]

It appears that JasonTE has the easier road in these debates. For he doesn’t have to PROVE the truth of Protestantism in general, or even his particular brand. All he has to do is find some ECF who supposedly contradicts the Catholic Church.

That’s really not relevant at all. Even if he is raising the argument out of sheer intellectual curiosity, presumably the goal is to get at the truth of the matter. What troubles me much more is the utter lack of effort made to understand why these things simply are not contradictions to the Catholic understanding of implicit doctrine.

When we say that a doctrine is implicitly in the deposit of faith, we mean that the doctrine was placed there by God for us to find in the implicit forms (the words of Scripture, the handed-down practices of the Church, the advocacy of doctrines in many of the Fathers, and the lex orandi lex credendi of the Liturgy) and that we have discovered the doctrine through the devout investigation of faith and the trials of heresy, often through a series of intermediate discoveries (the sinlessness of Mary, for example). Essentially, it is a hindsight statement, not an a priori statement. In fact, if you could draw the conclusion a priori then it would be an explicit doctrine (like baptismal regeneration or apostolic succession), not an implicit one.

It might help to think of theological investigation like scientific investigation. Even if a phenomenon is observed (e.g., the sun rising in the east and setting in the west), the technical explanation of that phenomenon may be long behind the discovery of the phenomenon itself, and there may be various intermediate explanations that are wrong (e.g., geocentrism) before the final reasonable formulation is announced. But the entire time this is going on, the objective world is still out there, abiding by its laws regardless of whether we are right about them or not. As time passes, certain formulations may obtain more and more certain acceptance in the scientific community, so that eventually, something may simply be accepted universally (e.g., heliocentrism). At the time that a scientist is advocating a position, he surely thinks that he is describing reality accurately (just as Augustine will surely say that his theological formulation is confirmed by the deposit of faith, even if it turns out in the end to be wrong). Science even has its own version of heresies: junk science and pseudoscience that must be exposed in order to avoid holding beliefs that are dangerous or fatal to one’s ability to perform actual science.

There are some glaring differences with science, of course. The most significant is that there is a directed increase of certainty in revelation, so that you never have the case of something more advanced coming along and replacing the definitively accepted theological conception (as heliocentrism replaced geocentrism or relativity replaced classical mechanics, for example). This is related to the fact that there is nothing new to discover in revelation. We are only describing what we already have, so there is no chance of stumbling across some new anomaly that requires you to revise your theory, as there might be in science.

continued…

 

[JPrejean]

… continued

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a perfect example of the “investigation of faith” paradigm. It is a theological formulation that builds on the concepts of original sin, human nature, and Christology, all brought together in one masterful accumulation of Catholic theology by Bl. John Duns Scotus, the Subtle Doctor. He answered objections by the most eminent Doctors of the Church (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Bernard, Anselm, and others), and did so with such theological mastery and grasp of Tradition (particularly the veneration of St. Anne) that all objections were silenced. The consent of theologians was virtually if not completely universal, and when Pope Pius infallibly declared the dogma as part of the constant teaching of the deposit of faith, he emphasized the “fittingness” of this special privilege, thus directly invoking Scotus’s argument taken from Anselm: “it was possible; it was fitting; therefore, it was accomplished.”
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5825

Now, how likely was it that Pope Pius was unaware of the debate over the subject when he drew directly from Duns Scotus’s argument? Unless Pope Pius were simply a crass liar or extremely stupid (and it would probably require both, considering how easy it would be to respond to the argument), then he must not have meant what he said in the way Mr. Engwer takes it. It should be obvious, then, that Pope Pius was talking about exactly what I mentioned: the implicit sources of the doctrine that were in hindsight revealed to be showing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

BTW, the Immaculate Conception is merely one example of numerous doctrines that have achieved such widespread recognition as to be understood as Catholic truth, whether infallibly proclaimed or not. Anselm’s theory of the atonement as against Bernard or Radbertus’s theory of the Real Presence against Ratramnus are other examples of this kind of development (not to mention the definitive canon of Scripture). It is no sin or even danger for the Catholic to dispute an implicit doctrine before such certainty has been achieved, or even to sincerely think that the deposit of faith contains his position. But denying such a doctrine after the fact effectively denies the Catholic concept of ever-increasing certainty about the deposit of faith.

 

[PhilVaz]

Prejean << Now, how likely was it that Pope Pius was unaware of the debate over the subject when he drew directly from Duns Scotus’s argument? Unless Pope Pius were simply a crass liar or extremely stupid (and it would probably require both, considering how easy it would be to respond to the argument), then he must not have meant what he said in the way Mr. Engwer takes it. >>

Exactly, great post. Pius IX knew there were those who opposed the doctrine, and that there was development in the history of the Church, and that it took time for the doctrine to be formulated.

From Ineffabilis Deus (1854) which defined the Immaculate Conception (read the whole encyclical here):

“And indeed, illustrious documents of venerable antiquity, of both the Eastern and the Western Church, very forcibly testify that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, which was daily more and more splendidly explained, stated and confirmed by the highest authority, teaching, zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the Church, and which was disseminated among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world in a marvelous manner – this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine. For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus – that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning.” (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854)

Likewise, Pius XII in his definition on the Assumption, grants there is a development of doctrine:

“Since the universal Church, within which dwells the Spirit of Truth who infallibly directs it toward an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths, has expressed its own belief many times over the course of the centuries, and since the bishops of the entire world are almost unanimously petitioning that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith – this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times, which is completely in harmony with the other revealed truths, and which has been expounded and explained magnificently in the work, the science, and the wisdom of the theologians – we believe that the moment appointed in the plan of divine providence for the solemn proclamation of this outstanding privilege of the Virgin Mary has already arrived.” (Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, 1950)

The language “toward an ever more perfect knowledge of revealed truths” and the expounding, explaining “in the work, science and wisdom of theologians”, shows that the Pope had an idea that Marian doctrine indeed develops…

Phil P

 

[JasonTE]

I’m going to quote JPrejean, but I’m responding to everybody who has commented on the subject.

JPrejean:

When we say that a doctrine is implicitly in the deposit of faith, we mean that the doctrine was placed there by God for us to find in the implicit forms (the words of Scripture, the handed-down practices of the Church, the advocacy of doctrines in many of the Fathers, and the lex orandi lex credendi of the Liturgy) and that we have discovered the doctrine through the devout investigation of faith and the trials of heresy, often through a series of intermediate discoveries

In an earlier post, I asked how the sinlessness of Mary can be derived from apostolic teaching. I cited Pope Pius IX saying that the Immaculate Conception is recorded in scripture, and I asked where it’s recorded in scripture. Nobody has explained how concepts such as an immaculate conception and post-conception sinlessness are derived from what the apostles taught. The issue, as I explained earlier, isn’t whether it’s possible to read a doctrine into a text of scripture, but rather whether the doctrine can be derived as a probable or necessary conclusion, as an acorn would inevitably grow into an oak tree. There is no way to so derive a doctrine such as the sinlessness of Mary from apostolic teaching. The doctrine is accepted because of alleged papal authority, not because it naturally grows from apostolic teaching as an oak grows from an acorn. But when Roman Catholics are asked for evidence for the papacy, they again appeal to the same sort of speculative and unverifiable process of doctrinal development. Thus, we’re asked to accept a series of unverifiable developments (the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, etc.) on the basis of another unverifiable development (the papacy).

The argument that Pope Pius IX mentions development in his decree Ineffabilis Deus is irrelevant. The issue isn’t whether the Pope thought there was development of some sort. I don’t deny that his claims allow for development in terminology, arguments for the doctrine, etc. But how much development does he allow? He refers to the Immaculate Conception doctrine itself, the concept of Mary being immaculately conceived, being always held and taught by the church. He doesn’t refer to a more vague concept being taught, which later led to an understanding that Mary was immaculately conceived. Rather, he refers to the concept of an immaculate conception itself always being held and taught. He doesn’t just say that the Eve/Mary parallel was always taught. He doesn’t just say that the ark/Mary parallel was always taught. What he says is that the Immaculate Conception doctrine itself was always taught. The fact that the Pope allows for some development in terminology, people’s understanding of the implications of the doctrine, etc. doesn’t change the fact that he refers to the doctrine always being held and taught by the church. It remains to be explained how Augustine and so many others could not only be unaware of, but even contradict and claim church support for their contradiction of, a doctrine that was always held and taught by the church.

JPrejean:

Unless Pope Pius were simply a crass liar or extremely stupid (and it would probably require both, considering how easy it would be to respond to the argument), then he must not have meant what he said in the way Mr. Engwer takes it.

By such reasoning, we can conclude that all sorts of errors apparently made by the Roman Catholic hierarchy over the centuries didn’t occur. What the Fourth Lateran Council seems to have said about Jews, for example, was “extremely stupid”, so the council must not have meant what it seems to have said. And when Popes apparently issued decrees accusing people of having sex with demons, condemning Bible societies, etc., such behavior would be “extremely stupid”, so those things must not have occurred.

What you need to do is interact with the words of the Pope, such as the segments of Ineffabilis Deus that I’ve cited. If you want to argue for alternate explanations of the text, then do so on the basis of the text, not on the basis of some vague reference to how the Pope surely wouldn’t say anything “extremely stupid”.

Now, if all Roman Catholicism has to offer is some possible, but unproveable, connection between Luke 1:28 and the Immaculate Conception or between the Eve/Mary parallel and the Immaculate Conception, for example, then what we have is a doctrine that’s accepted because of church authority, not because an acorn has inevitably grown into an oak tree. And if we’re going to ask who is deeper into history, I would say that those who side with Augustine are deeper than those who side with the papal decree issued more than 1400 years later.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[jaydog77]

Oy vey! How angry we’ve all become!

Let them call us Roman Catholics, and our Church the Roman Catholic Church. And let them wait another 200 years for us Catholics to be Left Behind.

I wonder how long they’ll wait for the “imminent” rapture before they realize it’s just a fad.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Oy vey! How angry we’ve all become! >>

Naw, no anger here. Everyone doing a great job, and JasonTE though outnumbered 25 to 1, is “holding his own” ok.

There are several “rapture” threads so you could post your comments there.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << I would say that those who side with Augustine are deeper than those who side with the papal decree issued more than 1400 years later. >>

One doesn’t side with Augustine if one claims the Blessed Virgin Mary is a sinner just like every other Christian (your position). One sides with Augustine (or Aquinas) if one insists Mary was free from sin (Catholic position), and cleansed sometime after conception.

AUGUSTINE = “Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin…” (De natura et gratia PL 44:267)

AQUINAS = "“Since Mary would not have been a worthy mother of God if she had ever sinned, we assert without qualification that Mary never committed a sinful act, fatal or non-fatal: You are wholly beautiful, my love, and without blemish…” (Summa Theologica IIIa:27.4-5)

There is a history behind the Immaculate Conception. Find MARIOLOGY edited by Juniper Carol, or The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God by Bishop Ullathorne and learn all about that history. Stop reading papal documents like your typical “fundamentalist” reads their Bible, taking texts out of context creating “pretexts.”

Phil P

 

[JPrejean]

JasonTE:

The issue, as I explained earlier, isn’t whether it’s possible to read a doctrine into a text of scripture, but rather whether the doctrine can be derived as a probable or necessary conclusion, as an acorn would inevitably grow into an oak tree.

That is not Newman meant by the analogy of the acorn to the oak tree. He even said that you can’t see the doctrine antecedently, but only retrospectively.

JasonTE:

There is no way to so derive a doctrine such as the sinlessness of Mary from apostolic teaching. The doctrine is accepted because of alleged papal authority, not because it naturally grows from apostolic teaching as an oak grows from an acorn.

This is exactly the brand of historical ignorance that Newman is decrying. Quoth Newman, “Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicaea and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John.” It is patently false that the doctrine is accepted because of papal authority. It is accepted because of centuries worth of theological development during the Middle Ages that somehow get dismissed from the realm of faithful and serious theological inquiry. It is accepted not because it necessarily had to grow from the deposit of faith (although it infallibly would do so through God’s providential guidance), but because it in fact DID grow from that deposit. You want to take all of that medieval theological development (except what you find convenient, of course, like the butchered Protestant version of Anselm’s theory of atonement) and consign it to the realm of “error” and “fallible men” and “apostate Israel.” By ignoring that history, you persist in this hopelessly naive nonsense that the Pope is simply making doctrines up to suit his fancy and handing them down from on high.

JasonTE:

But when Roman Catholics are asked for evidence for the papacy, they again appeal to the same sort of speculative and unverifiable process of doctrinal development. Thus, we’re asked to accept a series of unverifiable developments (the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, etc.) on the basis of another unverifiable development (the papacy).

There is nothing the least bit “speculative and unverifiable” about tracing the theological development of the papacy from Leo the Great through the Middle Ages. In fact, it is a subject of no small obsession among scholars of all theological persuasions. If you don’t believe in the Catholic view of how implicit doctrines develop in history, fine. But please don’t complain about a lack of evidence based on your own view of what history ought to be when you won’t even seriously engage the Catholic view except with meaningless assertions that it is “too vague,” “speculative,” “unverifiable,” or “merely possible.”

JasonTE:

[Note: Paragraph skipped as needlessly repetitive]
By such reasoning, we can conclude that all sorts of errors apparently made by the Roman Catholic hierarchy over the centuries didn’t occur… What you need to do is interact with the words of the Pope, such as the segments of Ineffabilis Deus that I’ve cited. If you want to argue for alternate explanations of the text, then do so on the basis of the text, not on the basis of some vague reference to how the Pope surely wouldn’t say anything “extremely stupid”

In this case, we have clear evidence that Pius was aware of the doctrinal controversy (the citation of Duns Scotus’s arguments) and equally clear evidence that he thought that the doctrine had always been taught. What kind of sensible historiography would neglect Pius’s own explanation of development in attempting to reconcile those statements? I explained directly from the text why I thought your interpretation was faulty, and you responded to the conclusion rather than interacting with my presentation of the text.

JasonTE:

Now, if all Roman Catholicism has to offer is some possible, but unproveable, connection between Luke 1:28 and the Immaculate Conception or between the Eve/Mary parallel and the Immaculate Conception, for example, then what we have is a doctrine that’s accepted because of church authority, not because an acorn has inevitably grown into an oak tree. And if we’re going to ask who is deeper into history, I would say that those who side with Augustine are deeper than those who side with the papal decree issued more than 1400 years later.

It is not a case of either/or; it is a case of not blindly dismissing a millennium of Christian theology as erroneous when determining whether a doctrine is supported. The fact that you make no reference to what happened in the 1400 intervening years makes it quite clear who is deeper in history.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

He refers to the Immaculate Conception doctrine itself, the concept of Mary being immaculately conceived, being always held and taught by the church.

Technically, I think the Pope says that “this doctrine always existed in the Church.” Not that it was necessairly always widespread.

In fact, just above, the Pope states that the doctrine was “daily more and more splendidly explained” and “disseminated.” I don’t read anything as indicating that the doctrine was necessarily initially universal.

My initial perusal also indicates that the Pope means that, if no where else, the doctrine was always held by the Church at Rome, and, a la Irenaeus, “For such dignity and authority belong to the Church that she alone is the center of truth and of Catholic unity. It is the Church in which alone religion has been inviolably preserved and from which all other Churches must receive the tradition of the Faith.[3]”

We apparently have no evidence of any Pope, at any time, contradicting the Immaculate Conception?

JasonTE:

He doesn’t refer to a more vague concept being taught, which later led to an understanding that Mary was immaculately conceived. Rather, he refers to the concept of an immaculate conception itself always being held and taught.

Nor do I think the Pope would refer to a “vague concept” of the Trinity being taught, which later led to an understanding that God was a Trinity. I suspect he’d say that the Trinity doctrine at least always “existed” in the Church.

But I’ll defer to the more knowledgeable.