Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[GKC]

Ok.

So if the point wasn’t ceded, then can you please post the rule that the pope was obeying in sanctioning the kidnapping of that little boy?

Thanks.

I probably can, before the Kretzer book arrives. But I won’t. I’m cautious.

GKC, unknown poster.

 

[guanophore]

PRmerger—Now I’m confused…Tomyris asked that we leave that subject and get on topic, so I didn’t post quotes from the CAF Ask the Apologist entries on the Mortara affair. GKC will be reading Kretzer’s book at some point.

While many of us are waiting with baited breath for his book to arrive…

Guanophore—Tomyris can’t concede a point she never made. I’m the one who said Pope Pius IX was “following the rules” which applied at the time, and which were based on an interpretation of a teaching and not merely on secular concerns, in his decision regarding Edgardo Mortara.

Actually I was referring to your concession. I think the challenge PR gave was to prove that it was a Church teaching or a doctrine. You were quite clear that it was a rule/law, and that you did not have the documentation to cite it’s source, but were very plain that the Pope was not “out of order” but following the ecclesial/secular order of the day.

I didn’t say I didn’t know the rule. I said I’m not an expert on Canon Law so I don’t know where to find it in a document. I’m going by the expertise of other people in saying it was a rule which Pope Pius IX used in making his very controversial decision.

Yes. It 's not accurate to say the Pope Pius IX was acting on his own; he was following the rules.

I thought I did provide what was the rule of the time in the Papal States–a Christian child could not be raised by non-Christian parents, and Edgardo was considered a Christian by virtue of the maid baptizing him…but yes,** I did not provide a location in a document** for that rule because I’m going by a memory which doesn’t remember those kinds of specific legal details from a book I read some years ago.

There are many articles on the internet from Catholic and non-Catholic sources, available to all via Google, for those not reading the book, explaining that Pope Pius IX made his decision based on steadfastly, in good conscience, abiding by a rule, rather than being a despot.

I took this statement as a concession - that you did not have documentation to provide, and were urging us to find our own.

More importantly, it seems there is a consensus that his actions were not emanating from a doctrinal source, but a rule, which can change over time, unlike doctrine, ,which cannot. For the record, though, I do agree with you - had this happened in my family I would consider it a kidnapping.

In an attempt to return to the thread topic, I guess my question would be, do you think the Reformation was more triggered by such rules and incidents, or by clergy who were despotic?

 

[stewstew03]

…
The safety net is in Jesus and His gracious works in a man not to bend what he says or hears and understands…

By golly…you just defined “infallibility”…Presto.

**yes **but of whom ?

I find it odd that your infallibility scheme allows a “Jesus Safety Net” for the hearer/reader, but denies a “Jesus Safety Net” for the church in her role as teacher…

As Augustine says my words are in plain sight and can be seen by some more deeply even differently than what you think they mean.

Source for this quote from St Augustine?

 

[JRKH]

I find it odd that your infallibility scheme allows a “Jesus Safety Net” for the hearer/reader, but denies a “Jesus Safety Net” for the church in her role as teacher…

Bingo.

Here is an interesting thing to consider…
Among sincere Christians, who is most likely to avoid error…Those who “test the spirits” in a group (ekklesia) or those who go it alone?

I believe most everyone would agree an individual is at greater risk of falling into error. That “testing the spirit” in a group is a good way to consider all aspects of a question and to ferret out error. The Catholic Church simply extends this idea to it’s logical conclusion - one body - one set of beliefs - one universal ekklesia.

The protestant model, as it has evolved, rejects this idea. The result is a wide range of beliefs - even contradictory beliefs with no way to resolve the matters…because they will accept the biblical model to it’s logical conclusion.

Peace
James

 

[joe371]

Bingo.

Here is an interesting thing to consider…
Among sincere Christians, who is most likely to avoid error…Those who “test the spirits” in a group (ekklesia) or those who go it alone?

I believe most everyone would agree an individual is at greater risk of falling into error. That “testing the spirit” in a group is a good way to consider all aspects of a question and to ferret out error. The Catholic Church simply extends this idea to it’s logical conclusion - one body - one set of beliefs - one universal ekklesia.

The protestant model, as it has evolved, rejects this idea. The result is a wide range of beliefs - even contradictory beliefs with no way to resolve the matters…because they will accept the biblical model to it’s logical conclusion.

Peace
James

:yup:

 

[joe371]

As Augustine says my words are in plain sight and can be seen by some more deeply even differently than what you think they mean.

I cannot find that quote. Augustine deferred to the authority of the Catholic Church

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

"If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, 'I do not believe'? **Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church** did not move me to do so" (Against the Letter of Mani Called 'The Foundation' 5:6).

 

[JRKH]

Bingo.

Here is an interesting thing to consider…
Among sincere Christians, who is most likely to avoid error…Those who “test the spirits” in a group (ekklesia) or those who go it alone?

I believe most everyone would agree an individual is at greater risk of falling into error. That “testing the spirit” in a group is a good way to consider all aspects of a question and to ferret out error. The Catholic Church simply extends this idea to it’s logical conclusion - one body - one set of beliefs - one universal ekklesia.

The protestant model, as it has evolved, rejects this idea. The result is a wide range of beliefs - even contradictory beliefs with no way to resolve the matters…because they will NOTaccept the biblical model to it’s logical conclusion.

Peace
James

OOPS…That last line should have had a “NOT” in it …my bad…

Peace
James

 

[stewstew03]

Bingo.

Here is an interesting thing to consider…
Among sincere Christians, who is most likely to avoid error…Those who “test the spirits” in a group (ekklesia) or those who go it alone?

I believe most everyone would agree an individual is at greater risk of falling into error. That “testing the spirit” in a group is a good way to consider all aspects of a question and to ferret out error. The Catholic Church simply extends this idea to it’s logical conclusion - one body - one set of beliefs - one universal ekklesia.

The protestant model, as it has evolved, rejects this idea. The result is a wide range of beliefs - even contradictory beliefs with no way to resolve the matters…because they will [not] accept the biblical model to it’s logical conclusion.

Peace
James

And with regard to the dispute between Paul and Peter at Antioch, imagine if Paul had applied the ‘protestant model’ and said “Peter, this isn’t what Jesus taught; therefore, it’s time to separate – I’m going off on my own in order to spread the **true Gospel!”

 

[AbideWithMe]

Yes that is a problem, just as an institutional, top down heirarchy church has ugly problems also…Yet His truth marches on, here and there, by Peter and by Paul (my church your church)

So here’s the problem with your “just as”.

The hierarchy’s ugly problems (of which there are many) are an example of men who are NOT FOLLOWING the rules. They are not taking the medicine offered by the Church. Rather, they have dismissed the teachings of the Church and “protested”, or, went on their own and decided to…cheat, lie, steal, and [fill in the blank with whatever sin you like].

Not really true—sometimes the hierarchy’s appalling misapplications of power were done by people who were in fact following the rules. The Edgardo Mortara case would be one such example.

While many of us are waiting with baited breath for his book to arrive…

Actually I was referring to your concession. I think the challenge PR gave was to prove that it was a Church teaching or a doctrine. You were quite clear that it was a rule/law, and that you did not have the documentation to cite it’s source, but were very plain that the Pope was not “out of order” but following the ecclesial/secular order of the day.

I took this statement as a concession - that you did not have documentation to provide, and were urging us to find our own.

More importantly, it seems there is a consensus that his actions were not emanating from a doctrinal source, but a rule, which can change over time, unlike doctrine, ,which cannot. For the record, though, I do agree with you - had this happened in my family I would consider it a kidnapping.

In an attempt to return to the thread topic, I guess my question would be, do you think the Reformation was more triggered by such rules and incidents, or by clergy who were despotic?

Guanophore–Well, then, I can’t concede regarding a point which I never made.

I’ve backed up to the first few posts on this topic. Prmerger said the hierarchy’s problems were from men who were “NOT FOLLOWING the rules” and who had dismissed the teachings of the Church.

I offered the Edgardo Mortara case as an example of men, including Pope Pius IX, who were in fact following the rules and taking the teaching of the Church with utmost seriousness and conviction.

I never said the rule being followed—that a baptised Christian child could not be raised by non-Christians—was a doctrine or dogma; I noted it was a rule of that time, but also founded upon a doctrine—that Trinitarian baptism is effective and indelible.

I readily said I don’t have a document with that rule. It still seems strange to me that I’m supposed to produce that document myself, because, as I said earlier, I’m no expert in this field but people —Catholic sources included, and especially—who are much more expert than me have no problem at all saying flatly that it was a rule, and those Catholic sources are easily available to anyone who takes a few minutes to look. The idea that it was a rule which was being followed is disputed by no-one, except on this thread. I can see being asked to provide evidence if I’d made a claim with any controversial standing, but there’s no controversy over the existence of a rule from the many Catholic sources I’ve read over a number of years.

Continued below with links…

 

[JRKH]

And with regard to the dispute between Paul and Peter at Antioch, imagine if Paul had applied the ‘protestant model’ and said “Peter, this isn’t what Jesus taught; therefore, it’s time to separate – I’m going off on my own in order to spread the ***true ***Gospel!”

I have made this same argument using the issue at Antioch in Acts 15.
Remember that not even PAUL - a Pharisee by training - could persuade the Judaizers. Using the Protestant model there would not have been a journey to Jerusalem and a council.

• • instead there would have been a a deadlock - - and the development of two separate Christian Churches in Antioch.
    Obviously Scripture (and consequently the Holy Spirit who is the Author of Scripture) frowns on such a thing

Peace
James

 

[Tomyris]

Here you go! Perhaps you may find this of interest.

Chapter XXXI

Of Synods and Councils

I. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.[1]

II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion;[2] so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.[3]

III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.[4]

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]

V. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.[6]

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

 

[PRmerger]

Here you go! Perhaps you may find this of interest.

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

So is this how you are saying you know that the 27 books in the NT are inspired?

PR–“I’m still confused”-merger

 

[AbideWithMe]

Sorry–When I posted my continuation earlier it didn’t go through.

Here’s a link from the Catholic League. I’m not familiar with the organization myself but I see Archbishops Dolan and Chaput praise them, so I assume they’re not wackos. www.catholicleague.org/pope-pius-ix-2:

“The law in the matter was clear: a baptized Christian could not be raised in a Jewish home. To do so at that time would be seen as being a party to apostasy, a denial of the validity of Baptism, and endanger the soul of the baptized. Edgardo was taken from his parent’s home and transported to Rome, where he would be raised as a Catholic.”

Sorry again…I have to go right now, but I’ll post the CAF AAA link later.

 

[Tomyris]

Just wanted to make the comment that guanophore is one of the best posters on this forum. He only has three faults

1. 
   *]He has fewer books than GKC (but don’t we all)
   *]He’s not Presbyterian (unlike the rest of us. QUIT LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT!!)
   *]He chose ‘guanophore’ as a user handle ('nuff said)

 

[GKC]

Just wanted to make the comment that guanophore is one of the best posters on this forum. He only has three faults

1. 
   *]He has fewer books than GKC (but don’t we all)
   *]He’s not Presbyterian (unlike the rest of us. QUIT LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT!!)
   *]He chose ‘guanophore’ as a user handle ('nuff said)

1. 
   Nobody is perfect.
   
   GKC

 

[PRmerger]

Just wanted to make the comment that guanophore is one of the best posters on this forum. He only has three faults

1. 
   *]He has fewer books than GKC (but don’t we all)
   *]-]He’s not Presbyterian /-](unlike the rest of us. QUIT LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT!!)
   *]He chose ‘guanophore’ as a user handle ('nuff said)

1. 
   
   

 

[Tomyris]

So is this how you are saying you know that the 27 books in the NT are inspired?

PR–“I’m still confused”-merger

No.

This is from Chapter 1.

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]

The Church can lead us to believe, but faith is still a gift of God, not a gift of the Church.

Although the Bible was protected and transmitted by the Church, God protected and transmitted the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Although the Bible was protected and transmitted by the Church, God protected and transmitted the Bible.

So you know what the inspired books are in the NT from the Catholic Church…and God protected the CC from making an error in discerning the canon?

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry–When I posted my continuation earlier it didn’t go through.

Here’s a link from the Catholic League. I’m not familiar with the organization myself but I see Archbishops Dolan and Chaput praise them, so I assume they’re not wackos. www.catholicleague.org/pope-pius-ix-2:

“The law in the matter was clear: a baptized Christian could not be raised in a Jewish home. To do so at that time would be seen as being a party to apostasy, a denial of the validity of Baptism, and endanger the soul of the baptized. Edgardo was taken from his parent’s home and transported to Rome, where he would be raised as a Catholic.”

Sorry again…I have to go right now, but I’ll post the CAF AAA link later.

Ok! That’s a little better. Thanks!

Now, if you could post what the law was…

 

[Tomyris]

So you know what the inspired books are in the NT from the Catholic Church…and God protected the CC from making an error in discerning the canon?

I think you can go with this:

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God

But what I bolded is regarded as ‘burning in the bosom’:

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

The Church can only take us so far.