P
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
can’t beat her visual attachments either. Do you have a thank you bow PR ?
B
benhur
Guest
posts # 711,736, 738, 743 touch upon it a bit, as does John in his epistle.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
You’ll need to be more specific. Which epistle?
G
guanophore
Guest
Do you not agree that the concept of penal substitution is what lays the groundwork for this separation between justification and sanctification?
I have met quite a few. Most non-denoms have never had any. “Bible Church’s” don’t see the episcopal structure either.
Yay! I love a good debate.
Of course I agree. I am just making the point that 1500 years of Sacred Tradition regarding the role of the episkopos was thrown out, in order to get rid of the corruption. Men are always in need of reform, but the doctrines are not. I note that the Eastern Church, which has not suffered what we in the West have with the Reformation, still retain the Apostolic structure of the bishopric.
What “organizational problem” was that?
Yes, we are in agreement that the structure and function did evolve. The small mustard seed that has become the largest tree can hardly be recognized. I wonder what the Apostles would say if they visited the Vatican?
However, it is clear in reading the early documents that nothing valid was done apart from the Bishop. The bishop, from the beginning, was the successor to the Apostles and the visible sign of unity.
I am sure that the effort to return to the earliest, pure model was motivated by a desire to return to purity and eliminate corruption. I fear that much was lost in the process.
Actually the two methods are not contradictory. All of the ordained come out of parishes where they are encouraged and put forward for the discernment of a vocation. Many parishes support their members during seminary and pastoral training. There are a lot of factors involved in the imposition of Holy Orders “from the outside”, and during the Renaissance and Middle Ages there was a conflation with secular power. Fortunately the CC has forbidden those who are ordained from holding secular office, which prevents the kinds of abuses that precipitated the Reformation.
Well, we read it differently.
To us it is the perfect pattern and description of the modern Mass, which evolved out of the Synagogue service.
Oh. I guess that is on my List.
I look forward.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Not to interject, but I wouldn’t think so. Strict Arminians also separate the ordo salutis into justification and sanctification, and distinguish between the two. They (historically) have denied penal substitution.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Therein lies the rub. Whatever theological differences exist between Catholics and Lutherans (and the Orthodox), they are important but nigh irrelevant compared to ecclesiology. It isn’t justification.
That is where our biggest hole is.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
As an aside, the East would probably argue that the penal substitution theory was just an erroneous outgrowth (by St. Anselm) that was a natural conclusion of the already erroneous satisfaction view held by the Latin church.
T
Tomyris
Guest
I have three problems with this.
- There is an assumption that I am Reformed therefore I am all atwitter about penal substitution. I am not sure we know enough, given the analogical nature of revelation and what we have, that we can really come down to one singular solution. We approach the Atonement kerygmatically primarily, not analytically. A lot happened. We know a lot. We don’t know everything.
- There is no separation between justification and sanctification. Those who are justified become sanctified, those who get sanctified were justified. We use the two terms analytically but experientially there is no separation. It is not “Tuesday you got J, Wednesday morning you begin S”. Justification is the initial step in a process. A poor analogy is to say that the end piece in a loaf of bread is the end piece, so it is not part of the loaf. The terms mean different things, but we use them for analysis.
- I see your statement as a non sequitor. No, I don’t agree, because I do not see a separation. There is no crack to drive a wedge in.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Well…Anytime you have a sole pastor and other leaders at a demonstrably lower level, you have an episcopal model. Many Baptist pastors would be quite startled to discover they are following an episcopal model of church government, something they would indict if they preached on church government.
In contrast you have the presbyterian model, with many elders in one church. Formerly you had many priests together in one house, rather than what seems to be the model now in churches, with one priest over one or even more churches. I think the institution of parish councils may be a move more towards a presbyterian model, which is healthier both for the pastor and the congregation.
Going from one small church or a few groups of churches to a huge number of churches. The resolution they employed was a furtherance of the episcopal model, which meant more and more power was concentrated in the hands of a few, who became rivals in many cases.
They might have a lot to say that would not be favorable. Bear in mind Protestants consider that St. Peter’s was built with plunder from Germany (indulgences, for one).Yes, we are in agreement that the structure and function did evolve. The small mustard seed that has become the largest tree can hardly be recognized. I wonder what the Apostles would say if they visited the Vatican?
I guess it is all settled then.
I think we have all lost a lot.
A reform I applaud.Actually the two methods are not contradictory. All of the ordained come out of parishes where they are encouraged and put forward for the discernment of a vocation. Many parishes support their members during seminary and pastoral training. There are a lot of factors involved in the imposition of Holy Orders “from the outside”, and during the Renaissance and Middle Ages there was a conflation with secular power. Fortunately the CC has forbidden those who are ordained from holding secular office, which prevents the kinds of abuses that precipitated the Reformation.
Well, we read it differently.
What Catholic distinctive is there in what Justin wrote that is not found among Lutherans or the Reformed? How can you demonstrate it was specifically Catholic? Or was that a time when we could all have happily worshiped together?
May that day come again soon. Maranatha.
G
guanophore
Guest
Actually the assumptions I have made about you are not relevant to the statement, since it was not directed to you. That being said, I am delighted you have chosen to respond.
.Would it not be reasonable to state that Jesus has provided us with all that we need to know to get us to heaven? I would advance the argument that the nature and process of salvation is the single most important part of His teaching. Although I can concede that we can’t know everything, I think we can know sufficiently to navigate our course in this life into the next. Otherwise, would not his mission have been a failure?
This is certainly the staunch Calvanistic position.
By separation I do not deny the concept of the Golden Chain, but refer rather to what has been taught to me here on CAF by Presbyterians about the events that occur, their meaning/function and the irreversible effects attributed to them.
The Apostles taught that it is possible for a person to fail to be united with their heavenly inheritance. Calvin departed from this position, replacing it with his own TULIP, etc.
Perhaps I am choosing poor words to make my point. Could we agree that a person is not sanctified until one is justified?
Could we agree that, once a person is justified, they will not lose that justification? The reason I relate this to the concept of penal substitution is because I understand Jesus’ payment of the sinners penalty to be permanent, and once a person enters into a state of justification it cannot be undone.
By “separation” I mean that justification is a once for all “step” that cannot be repeated, or undone.
NOt sure if I am followig this analogy. Perhaps I am impaired as a baker of homemade loaves. To me the end piece is still part of the loaf.
Both things are true. It is a myth, and there are those who believe it, teach it, ,pray it, and practice it, I am sorry to say. It is an unfortunate sequalae of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. That particular part of the TULIP has bitten us in the hinder regions.
I am relieved to hear that this particular aspect of the Apostolic faith, at least, has been preserved.
No wedge intended, just an observation that Calvin’s view placed justification as a single event, where the Apostolic faith holds differently.
G
guanophore
Guest
And not just the plunder of Germany, ,but of all of Europe. But I was not speaking of buildings, or even of corruption among the medieval clerics, but rather, of the episkopal structure that has evolved.
Yes. For those who have retained the Apostolic faith, it is a matter of holding fast to what we received, not just with regard to the role of the Bishop, but the whole deposit of faith. Although we can develop, we cannot undo, disregard, or alter that which was committed to the Church by the Apostles.
I think that Lutherans would see the same Masst that we do, because theirs derives from the Latin Rite which reflects what Justin describes.
What is distinctive, I think, is the meaning of the ritural he describes. Since the Eastern Orthodox have also retained the Apostolic faith, we can see what is not found by comparing the EO/Catholic understanding of the events to the Reformed,
Calvin, Zwingli and those who agreed with them did not appreciate any ritual that seemed “too Catholic”. Although some semblance of order was preserved in the spiritual descendants of these men, you have rightly pointed out that the preaching of the word replaced the Sacrament as the center of the meeting.
B
benhur
Guest
1John 2:20
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
1Jo 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.
Tell me, benhur, how do you interpret this?
Was John talking in an absolute sense? What is the anointing?
If that means that Christians (who have an anointing) know all the truth, taken in an absolute sense, as you seem to be implying, that means that MANY Christians are being dishonest in denying some truth or another, since they are in disagreement about many doctrines.
[The Church interprets this passage in a communal, corporate sense, as in the *sensus fidei. See CCC91-92]
G
GKC
Guest
Part the first:
Back 10 days ago, the subject of the Edgardo Mortara case dropped into the thread. In it, the question was raised as to what was the presumed authority (in the source book, by Kertzer) under which the abduction of Edgardo was performed. What dogma, magisterial document, doctrine, whatever required the child to be removed (there are other points of contention that might also be raised, but I’m not gonna). Since the answer required buying a book, I offered to see what might be found. I like books.
I picked up THE KIDNAPPING OF EDGARDO MORTARA/David Kertzer, which is apparently the only book length treatment of the case, in English, last Tuesday, finished it Thursday night. While waiting for it to arrive, I also read the other Kertzer book I own, THE POPES AGAINST THE JEWS, which traces the actions and policies of the Papal States, with respect to the Jews resident therein (which was reflected in Europe generally), from around the mid 18th century (with flashbacks further), to the end of the Papal States, and forward to the start of WWII. This is a subject I have been peripherally interested in, and own a few books related thereto.
I think I have the answer, not so much as Kertzer asserts it, but as the case was defined and defended by the Church itself, at the time. After reading around 675 pages to get here (my pleasure), I’ll start with a few observations.
Kertzer is a historian/social anthropologist, twice winner of the Marraro Prize from the Society for Italian Historical Studies (whatever that may be, exactly) and Jewish. His reaction to the case, and the history of how Jews were treated during this period, is obvious. He is is quite even handed and understated in his exposition of the history. The books are well written, heavily footnoted to original sources, primarily Vatican archives and the files of Church related papers, Osservatore romano and Civilta cattolica, especially. This use of sources is of particular interest in the second book, written shortly after the Edgardo one, and written particularly because the Vatican had opened the files and archives of the Holy Office/Inquisition in 1998; the Inquisition was the agency in the Papal States directly charged with dealing with the Jews. Kertzer made extensive use of these, and other Vatican archives, throughout.
The subjects here, are peripherally related to some stuff I already know and read, slightly: the fall of the Papal States in the Risorgimento, the trends of certain legislative initiatives, in the early 20th century in various European states, linking with my interest in WWII, and even a connection to my hero Chesterton. However, I’ll focus rather narrowly on the question at hand. First, 2 points:
The Mortara case was in no wise an anomaly. It was business as usual for the Inquisition. Kretzer cites 5-6 roughly analogous, roughly contemporary cases. The Church was not making this up as it went.
Pope Pius was not, as far as is known, involved in the very beginning of the case. And, the case not being particularly unusual in itself, there was no reason he would be. Later on, and fairly early at that, he did become increasingly and personally involved.
So, the question. What rule/law/policy/authority/whatever was being followed in this case (and in the similar cases)?
In one simple, administrative sense, Fr. Feletti, the Inquisitor in Bologna (in the northern Legations of the Papal States, where the case originated), received the necessary authority to seize Edgardo and transport him to Rome and the House of the Catechumens, by a 9 Nov 1857 letter from Cardinal De Ferrari, the Commissioner of the Holy Office, in Rome. Fr. Feletti had written to his superior, for instructions, Oct 26, when he had heard the story of the supposed baptism. Cardinal De Ferrari possessed the necessarily legal authority to do this, by virtue of the authority the Inquisition had, canonically, to deal with matters involving the Jews.
End first part.
Back 10 days ago, the subject of the Edgardo Mortara case dropped into the thread. In it, the question was raised as to what was the presumed authority (in the source book, by Kertzer) under which the abduction of Edgardo was performed. What dogma, magisterial document, doctrine, whatever required the child to be removed (there are other points of contention that might also be raised, but I’m not gonna). Since the answer required buying a book, I offered to see what might be found. I like books.
I picked up THE KIDNAPPING OF EDGARDO MORTARA/David Kertzer, which is apparently the only book length treatment of the case, in English, last Tuesday, finished it Thursday night. While waiting for it to arrive, I also read the other Kertzer book I own, THE POPES AGAINST THE JEWS, which traces the actions and policies of the Papal States, with respect to the Jews resident therein (which was reflected in Europe generally), from around the mid 18th century (with flashbacks further), to the end of the Papal States, and forward to the start of WWII. This is a subject I have been peripherally interested in, and own a few books related thereto.
I think I have the answer, not so much as Kertzer asserts it, but as the case was defined and defended by the Church itself, at the time. After reading around 675 pages to get here (my pleasure), I’ll start with a few observations.
Kertzer is a historian/social anthropologist, twice winner of the Marraro Prize from the Society for Italian Historical Studies (whatever that may be, exactly) and Jewish. His reaction to the case, and the history of how Jews were treated during this period, is obvious. He is is quite even handed and understated in his exposition of the history. The books are well written, heavily footnoted to original sources, primarily Vatican archives and the files of Church related papers, Osservatore romano and Civilta cattolica, especially. This use of sources is of particular interest in the second book, written shortly after the Edgardo one, and written particularly because the Vatican had opened the files and archives of the Holy Office/Inquisition in 1998; the Inquisition was the agency in the Papal States directly charged with dealing with the Jews. Kertzer made extensive use of these, and other Vatican archives, throughout.
The subjects here, are peripherally related to some stuff I already know and read, slightly: the fall of the Papal States in the Risorgimento, the trends of certain legislative initiatives, in the early 20th century in various European states, linking with my interest in WWII, and even a connection to my hero Chesterton. However, I’ll focus rather narrowly on the question at hand. First, 2 points:
The Mortara case was in no wise an anomaly. It was business as usual for the Inquisition. Kretzer cites 5-6 roughly analogous, roughly contemporary cases. The Church was not making this up as it went.
Pope Pius was not, as far as is known, involved in the very beginning of the case. And, the case not being particularly unusual in itself, there was no reason he would be. Later on, and fairly early at that, he did become increasingly and personally involved.
So, the question. What rule/law/policy/authority/whatever was being followed in this case (and in the similar cases)?
In one simple, administrative sense, Fr. Feletti, the Inquisitor in Bologna (in the northern Legations of the Papal States, where the case originated), received the necessary authority to seize Edgardo and transport him to Rome and the House of the Catechumens, by a 9 Nov 1857 letter from Cardinal De Ferrari, the Commissioner of the Holy Office, in Rome. Fr. Feletti had written to his superior, for instructions, Oct 26, when he had heard the story of the supposed baptism. Cardinal De Ferrari possessed the necessarily legal authority to do this, by virtue of the authority the Inquisition had, canonically, to deal with matters involving the Jews.
End first part.
G
GKC
Guest
Part the second:
In a deeper sense, what would the Church cite as the authority to deal thusly, in this particular class of things, involving the Jews? In defending the actions taken, as was increasingly necessary, to the faithful, and to the concerned governments and individuals aroused by the case, the usual response of the Church was … The Canon. Canon Law. Church Law. Ecclesiastical Law. Theologians/Canonists. This was the inevitable line of justification. A good example would be the document Brevi Cenna, a 34 page brief background paper issued in mid-Oct 1858, by Cardinal Antonelli, the Cardinal Secretary of State, to Papal Nuncios and similar Church officials across Europe to be used as background to explain and defend the Church’s actions. It may be taken as typical of the justification the Church gave throughout the case. Among the points made was that, assuming a Jew (infidel) had received, in some fashion, a sacramentally valid baptism, the Church “enters in control of its new son, and adopts every means to distance him from the faithlessness of his parents and to nourish and raise him in the grace of Jesus Christ”. Which is precisely what was done with Edgardo. And “In fact, the Canonists and Theologians are in full agreement with this truth: that in no case should a baptized child be returned to infidel parents”. It would be to countenance apostasy to do so. “God has given the Church the power and the right to take possession of baptized children of infidels in order to protect in them the sanctity of what they have received, and to nourish them for eternal life”. Hence Edgardo must be taken. (Kretzer, KIDNAPPING, pp. 147, 149).
As I said, the answer as to why these things must be done inevitably referred to the Canons, the law. But certainly, as the online old Catholic Encyclopedia points out, the canon comes from a variety of sources, with a range of authority, either of Divine law, or of human or positive law. Is it possible that the requirement to take baptized infidel children from their parents, assuming it was correctly called Canonical, might refer to some lesser requirement; a matter of discipline, or something other than based on the magisterium of the Church? The requirement that the Jews assemble on the Sabbath for the *prediche coatte *was established by a 1555 Papal Bull. Pius IX suspended it. Might the requirement to take infidel children who were baptized be something similar: not a part of the deposit of faith?
I am no expert but it doesn’t seem likely. Not knowing precisely what portion of the Canon Law the Church was referring to doesn’t help, but considering that the point is concerned with the ontological change to the soul, through the infusion of grace, made when the person receives a valid baptism, transforming the infidel into a Christian, and the relevance of that to salvation itself, would make me think that something relevant and essential to the faith is being so adamantly asserted, and defended, and practiced here.
So. The answer, in short, is canonical laws. But again, I am no expert. All I am, in this venue, is the one who has read the books. Anyone interested should read them also; I often recommend that. History is complicated, and its roots lie deep and twisted. And to get deep into that history, you may have to get past some dirt. Digging can be work.
GKC
In a deeper sense, what would the Church cite as the authority to deal thusly, in this particular class of things, involving the Jews? In defending the actions taken, as was increasingly necessary, to the faithful, and to the concerned governments and individuals aroused by the case, the usual response of the Church was … The Canon. Canon Law. Church Law. Ecclesiastical Law. Theologians/Canonists. This was the inevitable line of justification. A good example would be the document Brevi Cenna, a 34 page brief background paper issued in mid-Oct 1858, by Cardinal Antonelli, the Cardinal Secretary of State, to Papal Nuncios and similar Church officials across Europe to be used as background to explain and defend the Church’s actions. It may be taken as typical of the justification the Church gave throughout the case. Among the points made was that, assuming a Jew (infidel) had received, in some fashion, a sacramentally valid baptism, the Church “enters in control of its new son, and adopts every means to distance him from the faithlessness of his parents and to nourish and raise him in the grace of Jesus Christ”. Which is precisely what was done with Edgardo. And “In fact, the Canonists and Theologians are in full agreement with this truth: that in no case should a baptized child be returned to infidel parents”. It would be to countenance apostasy to do so. “God has given the Church the power and the right to take possession of baptized children of infidels in order to protect in them the sanctity of what they have received, and to nourish them for eternal life”. Hence Edgardo must be taken. (Kretzer, KIDNAPPING, pp. 147, 149).
As I said, the answer as to why these things must be done inevitably referred to the Canons, the law. But certainly, as the online old Catholic Encyclopedia points out, the canon comes from a variety of sources, with a range of authority, either of Divine law, or of human or positive law. Is it possible that the requirement to take baptized infidel children from their parents, assuming it was correctly called Canonical, might refer to some lesser requirement; a matter of discipline, or something other than based on the magisterium of the Church? The requirement that the Jews assemble on the Sabbath for the *prediche coatte *was established by a 1555 Papal Bull. Pius IX suspended it. Might the requirement to take infidel children who were baptized be something similar: not a part of the deposit of faith?
I am no expert but it doesn’t seem likely. Not knowing precisely what portion of the Canon Law the Church was referring to doesn’t help, but considering that the point is concerned with the ontological change to the soul, through the infusion of grace, made when the person receives a valid baptism, transforming the infidel into a Christian, and the relevance of that to salvation itself, would make me think that something relevant and essential to the faith is being so adamantly asserted, and defended, and practiced here.
So. The answer, in short, is canonical laws. But again, I am no expert. All I am, in this venue, is the one who has read the books. Anyone interested should read them also; I often recommend that. History is complicated, and its roots lie deep and twisted. And to get deep into that history, you may have to get past some dirt. Digging can be work.
GKC
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Thanks for your work, GKC. That’s all helpful information.
PRmerger–please see GKC’s two posts.
I saw Steven Spielberg in April of this year has signed on to produce a movie on Edgardo Mortara based on Kretzer’s book. If that movie does materialize, it may behoove Catholics to be familiar enough with the story to do some Catholic apologetics for the friends and acquaintances who may ask about it.
I myself apologize for dropping out of this thread. I know I owe several replies to PRmerger from way back, Guanophore, and FathersKnowBest; I’m sorry for being an absentee discussion partner. I have some elderly-mom-still-living-alone responsibilities that came up; she is such a lovely person that I’ve been too heavy-hearted and preoccupied to focus my attention on the internet.
But, this has been an interesting thread, as far as I’ve read it.
PRmerger–please see GKC’s two posts.
I saw Steven Spielberg in April of this year has signed on to produce a movie on Edgardo Mortara based on Kretzer’s book. If that movie does materialize, it may behoove Catholics to be familiar enough with the story to do some Catholic apologetics for the friends and acquaintances who may ask about it.
I myself apologize for dropping out of this thread. I know I owe several replies to PRmerger from way back, Guanophore, and FathersKnowBest; I’m sorry for being an absentee discussion partner. I have some elderly-mom-still-living-alone responsibilities that came up; she is such a lovely person that I’ve been too heavy-hearted and preoccupied to focus my attention on the internet.
But, this has been an interesting thread, as far as I’ve read it.
G
GKC
Guest
I doubt that PR can see that.
And I am intimately, thoroughly, personally acquainted with elderly mom issues. No more, for over 7 years, but the loss is still there. May God give you strength.
GKC
- Status