P
PRmerger
Guest
Awww, thanks, friend! :flowers:
Indeed.
Right.
And each and every time a Christian who rejects the authority of the Church quotes Scripture, what he is doing is tacitly acknowledging the authority of the Church.
- Status
And each and every time a Christian who rejects the authority of the Church quotes Scripture, what he is doing is tacitly acknowledging the authority of the Church.
B
benjohnson
Guest
That was quite good. Thanks!Oh, p-shaw!shaw:
Best explanation is this: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html
The only thing I can think to add is that God even shows us that suffering will be redeemed with the cross of Jesus.
P
PRmerger
Guest
One other thing I would add, coming from one of the best:
The “dark” passages of the Bible
In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t follow you.
There is no doubt at all, historically, that early sixteenth-century Catholics thought that the Church taught that heretics should be burned. Exsurge isn’t an isolated document–it’s just the most official statement I know of backing up the common teaching and practice. Erasmus of Rotterdam criticized the execution of heretics, and then later backtracked, claiming that the Protestants had taken him out of context and that he hadn’t really meant to say that heretics should not be executed, just that princes should be moderate in how they applied the death penalty to heresy.
Historians argue over a lot of stuff. It’s how we get dissertations published. But this is not one of the things historians argue about. The only people who question it are conservative Catholics who want to cling to an untenable notion of the perspicuity of Catholic teaching.
How on earth do you know this? Are you seriously suggesting that priests and bishops were teaching perspicuously that heretics shouldn’t be executed?
This is sheer fantasy, not only because all the evidence points in the other direction (that the common “teaching”–I put the word in scare quotes because of the endless morass I got into two years ago about what “teaching” means, since it’s a technical term in your tradition, and I’m just using it in its common vernacular sense to mean what people would have heard from priests and bishops and friars and so on–was that heretics should be executed) in this specific instance, but also because it flies in the face of the reality on many issues today. You surely know perfectly well that whatever is the case for the “official” teaching found in the Catechism, encyclicals, etc., the preaching people hear in parishes is often very far from a perspicuous proclamation of Catholic doctrine.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Hardly.
I don’t think ED poses a serious challenge to papal infallibility at all. Infallibility is much narrower (at least in many Catholic theological interpretations) than you’re allowing for.
Infallibility is a red herring. Catholic apologists will pull you into that black hole (i.e., arguing over which teachings are infallible, or even over which documents count as “teaching” in the first place) and you will never come out. (OK, to be fair I should also say that I’m strongly inclined to believe in papal infallibility, in its most moderate and minimally defined sense, so we’re probably not on the same page here.)
This is what happened in the thread to which PRMerger linked above–a whole bunch of folks on this forum insisted that Exsurge Domine wasn’t “teaching” at all, and others insisted that it wasn’t really teaching that heretics should be burned, only that Luther shouldn’t be so arrogant in claiming that he knew the mind of the Holy Spirit!
That earlier debate was provoked by a statement about “changing teaching.”
This one is about “perspicuity.” And that’s where I want to keep it. I’m not challenging infallibility. I’m simply pointing out that a sixteenth-century Christian had every reasonable ground for believing that the Church taught that heretics should be burned at the stake. And that sixteenth-century Christian would be wrong. Erasmus, in his younger more “radical” years, before he backed away in response to the grimmer and more repressive atmosphere resulting from the Reformation, was right.
Edwin
B
benjohnson
Guest
Are you saying that ED wasn’t given ex cathedra? If you are, then I can certainly see your point.
For me, the document was so iron-clad in documenting its authority that I personally can’t dismiss it as anything less that an ex cathedra document. I could be convinced that certain portions of it were not ex cathedra, but in looking at it afresh, the document seems to stand completely or not at all.
Of course, if I was polite, I would defer to Catholic teaching on what is or isn’t ex cathedra, but at some point it begins to stretch the point when a particular document says that it has the full weight and contemplation of the church and papal office, and to then later discount it. It leaves an outsider observer rather perplexed at the minimum.
I’ll certainly admit the strong claims of Papal Infallibility have evidence that largely supports it. In fact if there was one living person I would trust to give me almost perfect christian advice, it would be the current Pope. But for me, there is just enough corner cases to make one doubt that the office itself is could always be trusted on dogma.
EDIT: I edited a lot of polemics out of my original
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, according to Avery Dulles, one legitimate way of interpreting Vatican I is to look to later reception by the Church as part of the process of determining whether a teaching is infallible. (Vatican I made clear that reception is not necessary to make the statement infallible in the first place.) It’s not simply a matter of looking at the language used in the encyclical itself, though that’s certainly part of it.
I struggle with this too though–it does often seem as if Catholics are doing an awful lot of intellectual acrobatics. . . . .
I think that one solution is to rethink what the purpose of infallibility is. If infallibility is understood in the service of the communion of the Church rather than as a means of providing epistemological certainty, and if Church teaching is understood in an apophatic sense (i.e., it’s about refuting error rather than definitively teaching truth), then I think some of these difficulties disappear.
Edwin
B
benjohnson
Guest
That would be reasonable - I’m certainly largely inclined to give the papal office the benefit of the doubt.
But I don’t think that’s what would be required if I were to truly believe the dogma of Papal Infallibility. I don’t think we can minimize the dogma that easy.
I know I could say that I almost agree with everything given Ex Cathedra post V I because it has been sensible and delightful, but that’s not the easy things we would have to bind our selves into believing, but the not-so-reasonable things that could potentially be given.
Given that the historic papal office has said some not-so-reasonable things, I don’t see any reason to think that the demarcation point for perfect papal Ex Cathedra teaching has any rational evidence of existing.
Of course, rational evidence isn’t required, only faith, but alas I’m probably too stubborn in my Lutheran ways.
C
Contarini
Guest
But why are you trying to set your own criteria for what the Catholic Church would require of you to become Catholic?
Cardinal Dulles held the view I described not only in his early years (when perhaps he could have been classified as a liberal) but also late in life when he was a Cardinal and an extremely respected, mainstream Catholic theologian in good standing with the Church. I know this (vain namedropping coming up) because I asked him and he told me.
This isn’t some kind of radical, edgy idea held by some extremely liberal theologian out there.
Reason is the devil’s whore, or have you forgotten?
Actually, of course that’s not the Catholic approach.
If anything, Catholicism is too rationalistic:shrug:
Edwin
B
benjohnson
Guest
I don’t think I am - If I’m not mistaken I’m going by the definition of what the Catholic church magisterium teaches. While there’s a broad range of individual Catholic viewpoints that I could choose from, I don’t think that a Catholic gets to do that - one has to stick to church teaching from it’s highest and most rigorous authority.
It sounds even better in spittle-filled German!Reason is the devil’s whore, or have you forgotten?
I try not to encourage our Catholc friends too much…
But it is entertaining. 
J
jmcrae
Guest
The tenets of the Nicene Creed (including Mary’s title of Virgin) are to be held as Dogma, of course.
There are other tenets that are also dogmatic in nature, that come to us from a developed understanding of the Holy Tradition of the Apostles.
There are also disciplinary teachings that are changeable. The important thing to remember about those is that it’s the Pope who gets to change them; not us.
There are as many different ways to be Catholic as there are Catholics, though. As long as you’re following the precepts and living according to your state in life, there’s actually all kinds of wiggle room - way more than there is in any single Protestant denomination.
P
PRmerger
Guest
As one of your Catholic friends, I want to know what you mean by this!I try not to encourage our Catholc friends too much…
B
benjohnson
Guest
Raher that say that Catholics may be too intellectual, perhaps I should say that us Lutherans are a simple folk. Maybe we drink too much beer
A good example is the Catholic explanation of Transubstantiation. It’s amazing complex and just when I think I understand, I realize that I really don’t. I can say the definition, but when I think about it, I realize that I just don’t get it. Now I actually like the idea because it’s so very fascinating, and it appeals to my curious mind.
But…
We simple Lutherans simply say “Take, eat.” It is as Jesus taught us: “This is my body, broken for you.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah, very good, then.Raher that say that Catholics may be too intellectual, perhaps I should say that us Lutherans are a simple folk. Maybe we drink too much beer
A good example is the Catholic explanation of Transubstantiation. It’s amazing complex and just when I think I understand, I realize that I really don’t. I can say the definition, but when I think about it, I realize that I just don’t get it. Now I actually like the idea because it’s so very fascinating, and it appeals to my curious mind.
But…
We simple Lutherans simply say “Take, eat.” It is as Jesus taught us: “This is my body, broken for you.”
You do know, ben, that Transubstantiation is the theory. The* dogma* is the Real Presence.
S
Sixpence
Guest
Yes, Protestants have traditions. They don’t have the same level of authority as Scripture (which is what SS is- it is not the elimination of all tradition)- but yes, we do have traditions.
Are you just figuring this out now?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent.
Then you have no objection to tradition. Even man-made traditions.
However, you are aware that Sacred Tradition is exquisitely different from the tradition to which you refer, yes?
B
benjohnson
Guest
Yes! I undertand the Transubstantiation is doctrine for the dogma.Ah, very good, then.
You do know, ben, that Transubstantiation is the theory. The* dogma* is the Real Presence.
Let me also add that I’m not at all suggesting that Lutheran simplicity is superior - on some issues I find it helpful, but in others issues the depth of Catholic teaching is very helpful indeed.
I would say that in certain issues, the lack of Lutheran rigor has lead some too-flexable Lutherans to their own ideas that are contrary to the truth. For example, we Lutherans generally ignored the problem of contraceptives until it was too late. While we were busy ignoring the problem, our Catholic friends created Humana Vita as a bulwark for the truth.
P
PRmerger
Guest
S
Sixpence
Guest
Man made is the only kind of tradition there is. As far as my objections, it depends on the tradition. As a corollary to this, I have no objection to storytelling through the medium of film. Yet there are a few movies that I would object to, and I know you would too. Making movies isn’t a bad thing, and neither is making traditions. Yet there are both movies and traditions that range from excellent/praiseworthy/essential to questionable/suspect and all the way over to wrong/stupid/should not have been made.
When was it that you realized Protestants have tradition?
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are absolutely right about that, Sixpence.
Sacred Tradition, however, is the Word of God and therefore decidedly *not *man-made.
- Status